A STUDY ON POSSIBLE FOREIGN IMPACTS ON THE SUNGUR BEY MOSQUE IN NİĞDE

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

DİDEM ESİN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE

JANUARY 2005

Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences

Prof. Dr. Sencer AYATA Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.

Prof. Dr. Suna GÜVEN Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.

Prof. Dr. Ömür BAKIRER Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Prof. Dr. Suna GÜVEN (METU, AH) ______

Prof. Dr. Ömür BAKIRER (METU, REST) ______

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ali Uzay PEKER (METU, AH) ______

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last Name : Didem ESİN

Signature :

viii

ABSTRACT

A STUDY ON POSSIBLE FOREIGN IMPACTS ON THE SUNGUR BEY MOSQUE IN NİĞDE

ESİN, Didem M. A., Department of History of Architecture Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ömür BAKIRER

January 2005, 143 pages

Sungur Bey Mosque and the Tomb adjacent to it were built in Niğde in the first half of the 14th century. In many respects, the Mosque is a traditional Anatolian building in terms of its architecture and decoration. Nevertheless, some of the architectural forms observed on the Mosque point to possible foreign interactions.

The aim of this thesis is to take a critical look at the sources of the foreign architectural forms observed on the Sungur Bey Mosque and to question how such interactions could be possible in the 14th century Anatolia. In this context, the foreign architectural elements of the Mosque are compared vis-à-vis contemporary examples from Europe, Eastern Crusader States, Cyprus, Armenia and Anatolia. In addition, Crusades, trade relations and traveling artists are considered among possible interactions, which could be influential in the transmission of these architectural forms. Thus, Sungur Bey Mosque is evaluated in a different viewpoint, which considers historical events and a number of possible interactions.

Keywords: Sungur Bey Mosque, Niğde, Principalities Period Architecture, Foreign Impacts, Crusades.

ix

ÖZ

NİĞDE SUNGUR BEY CAMİSİ’NDE GÖRÜLEN MUHTEMEL YABANCI ETKİLER ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA

ESİN, Didem Yüksek Lisans, Mimarlık Tarihi Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Ömür BAKIRER

Ocak 2005, 143 sayfa

Sungur Bey Camisi ve Türbesi’nin oluşturduğu ikili yapı grubu, Niğde’de 14. yüzyılın ilk yarısında inşa edilmiştir. Cami, mimarisi ve süslemesiyle pek çok açıdan geleneksel bir Anadolu yapısıdır. Ancak, Cami’de gözlemlenen bazı mimari öğeler muhtemel yabancı etkilere işaret etmektedir.

Bu tezin amacı, Sungur Bey Cami’sinde görülen yabancı mimari öğelere kritik bir bakış açısıyla yaklaşarak, bu etkileşimlerin 14. yüzyılda Anadolu’da nasıl mümkün olabildiklerini irdelemektir. Bu bağlamda, Cami’de görülen yabancı mimari öğeler çağdaş Avrupa, Doğu Haçlı, Kıbrıs, Ermeni ve Anadolu örnekleriyle karşılaştırılmaktadır. Ayrıca, Haçlı Seferleri, ticaret ilişkileri ve gezgin sanatçılar gibi bu mimari öğelerin yayılmasında etkili olabilecek çeşitli muhtemel etkileşimler irdelenmektedir. Böylelikle, Sungur Bey Camisi, tarihi olayları ve çeşitli muhtemel etkileşimleri göz önüne alan değişik bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Sungur Bey Camisi, Niğde, Beylikler Dönemi Mimarisi, Yabancı Etkiler, Haçlı Seferleri.

x

To My Mother

xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express my most sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Ömür Bakırer, for her valuable suggestions, guidance, encouragements and insight throughout the study. I am also indebted to Prof. Dr. Suna Güven and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ali Uzay Peker for their suggestions and comments.

I am grateful to my friends Meltem Arı, Esra Çonkır, Selen Uğur, Nimet Elmas, Pelin Yoncacı and Osman Tanıdık for their continuous support and moral boost. I would particularly like to thank Kutlutan Fişekçi, who gave the initiative to start this programme and who encouraged me during the research.

I express my deepest gratitude to my family and especially Prof. Dr. Aynur Durukan and Rişe Sanel for their suggestions, support and guidance. Finally, I would like to extend my dearest thanks to my mother Ulufer Esener and my husband Murat Esin, who gave their love and support throughout this study.

xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM ……………………………………………………………………...iii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………iv ÖZ……………………………………………………………………………………v DEDICATION ……………………………………………………………..…….…vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………….…vii TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………...…...viii TABLE OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………... xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Recent Scholarship on the Mosque...... 3 1.2 Aim and Methodology of the Thesis ...... 6 2. HISTORY AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF NİĞDE ...... 8 2.1 Geographic Location of Niğde...... 8 2.2 History of Niğde ...... 9 2.2.1 Niğde Before the Arrival of the Turks...... 9 2.2.2 Niğde After the Arrival of the Turks ...... 10 2.3 Urban Development in Niğde ...... 13 2.4 Niğde in the Travelers’ Books ...... 16 2.5 Sungur Bey Mosque in the Urban Context...... 19 3. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS...... 20 3.1 Inscriptions...... 20 3.1.1 Inscription Panels on the East Portal ...... 21 3.1.2 Inscription Panel on the Base of the North Minaret ...... 22 3.1.3 Inscription Panel on the Minber...... 23 3.2 Foundation Charter and Archive Documents ...... 25 3.3 The Mosque in the Travelers’ Books...... 25

viii

4. ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DECORATION ...... 27 4.1 Site ...... 27 4.2 Repairs ...... 27 4.3 Plan ...... 28 4.4 Façade Articulation...... 30 4.4.1 East Façade ...... 30 4.4.2 North Façade...... 31 4.4.3 West Façade...... 32 4.4.4 South Façade...... 32 4.4.5 Interior...... 33 4.5 Construction Materials...... 34 4.6 Architectural Decoration...... 34 4.6.1 East Portal ...... 34 4.6.2 North Portal...... 37 4.6.3 Mihrab...... 38 4.6.4 Mahfil...... 39 4.6.5 Minber...... 39 5. TRADITIONAL AND FOREIGN ELEMENTS OF THE MOSQUE...... 41 5.1 Traditional Elements, which Show a Continuation on the Mosque...... 42 5.1.1 Plan and Mass ...... 42 5.1.2 Portal Composition ...... 43 5.1.3 Materials of Construction ...... 44 5.1.4 Architectural Decoration...... 44 5.2 New Elements, which Show the Influence of Foreign Impacts...... 48 5.2.1 Ribbed Cross Vault of the East Portal ...... 48 5.2.1.1 Origins and Contemporary Examples...... 48 5.2.2 Geometric Arrangements Reminiscent of Rose Windows ...... 50 5.2.2.1 Geometric Arrangements on the Tympanum of the East Portal....50 5.2.2.2 Geometric Arrangement Above the North Portal ...... 51 5.2.2.3 Origins and Contemporary Examples...... 51 5.2.3 Recessed Arches of the Windows on the West Façade and in the Interior...... 55 5.2.3.1 Origins and Contemporary Examples...... 55

ix

5.2.4 Tympana of the Windows on the West Façade and in the Interior...... 58 5.2.4.1 Origins and Contemporary Examples...... 60 5.2.5 Moulded Band on the Exterior and in the Interior of the Mosque...... 62 5.2.5.1 Contemporary Examples...... 62 5.2.6 Clustered Piers Inside the Mosque...... 62 5.2.6.1 Origin and Contemporary Examples ...... 62 6. POSSIBLE INTERACTIONS...... 65 6.1 Crusades...... 65 6.1.1 First Crusade (1096-1099) ...... 66 6.1.2 Second Crusade (1145-1149)...... 67 6.1.3 Third Crusade (1187-1192)...... 67 6.1.4 Fourth Crusade (1198-1204)...... 68 6.1.5 First Crusader League (1332-1334)...... 68 6.2 Trade Relations ...... 69 6.2.1 Land and Sea Routes...... 69 6.2.2 Trade Relations During Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Periods.. 71 6.2.2.1 Trade Relations with the Latins ...... 73 6.2.2.2 Trade Relations with Cyprus ...... 74 6.3 Traveling Artists ...... 75 6.3.1 Traveling Artists in Anatolia ...... 76 6.3.2 Traveling Artists in the West ...... 77 6.3.3 Masons’ Marks...... 77 6.4 Other Possible Interactions ...... 80 7. CONCLUSION...... 82 FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………….87 TABLE: MASONS’ MARKS IN ANATOLIA, EUROPE AND CYPRUS………..124 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………130 APPENDIX: IMPORTANT DATES IN CRUSADING HISTORY………………..139

x

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of Anatolia in the Principalities Period (1299-1300) (Kolay 1999, 4)...... 88

Figure 2 Sungur Bey Mosque- General View from South-west. (D. Esin)………………………………………………………………………….…88

Figure 3 Plan of Niğde (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 1)………………………………………………………….89

Figure 4 Sungur Bey Mosque- Mutilated Inscription Panel on the East Portal (D. Esin)……………………………………………………………………………..90

Figure 5 Sungur Bey Mosque- Inscription Panel on the Door Frame of the East Portal (D. Esin)………………………………………………….…………………..90

Figure 6 Sungur Bey Mosque- Inscription Panel on the Base of the North Minaret (D. Esin)………………………………………………………..…………..90

Figure 7 Inscription Panels on the Left of the Original Minber of Sungur Bey Mosque in Dışarı Mosque (D. Esin)……………………………………………91

Figure 8 Inscription Panels on the Right of the Original Minber of Sungur Bey Mosque in Dışarı Mosque (D. Esin)……………………………………………91

Figure 9 Sungur Bey Mosque- Current Plan (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 23)………………………………………………………...92

Figure 10 Sungur Bey Mosque- Restitution by Gabriel (Gabriel 1962, Fig. 14)………………………………………………………………92

Figure 11 Sungur Bey Mosque- Restitution by Gabriel (Gabriel 1962, Fig. 17)………………………………………………………………92

Figure 12 Sungur Bey Mosque- Restitution by Özkarcı (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 25)………………………………………………………...92

Figure 13 Sungur Bey Mosque- East Façade (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 27)…………………………….………………………….93

xi

Figure 14 Sungur Bey Mosque- East Façade (A. Durukan Archive)…………………………………………………………….…93

Figure 15 Sungur Bey Mosque- North Façade (A. Durukan Archive)………………………………………………..…………..….94

Figure 16 Sungur Bey Mosque- Detail from the North Façade (A. Durukan Archive) ………………………………………………………………94

Figure 17 Sungur Bey Mosque- West Façade (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 28)………………………………………….……………..95

Figure 18 Sungur Bey Mosque- West Façade (D. Esin)………………………………………………………………….………….95

Figure 19 Sungur Bey Mosque- South Façade (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 29)……………………………………………….………..96

Figure 20 Sungur Bey Mosque- Projecting Mass of the Mihrab Niche on South Façade (D. Esin)……………………………………………………….….….96

Figure 21 Sungur Bey Mosque- Timber Columns in the Interior Covered by Stucco (A. Durukan Archive)………………………………………….…..…….97

Figure 22 Sungur Bey Mosque- An Oval Column and a Cusped Pier on the East Elevation (A. Durukan Archive) ……………………………………...…...97

Figure 23 Sungur Bey Mosque- Plan of the Mahfil Section (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 24) ………………………………………………………..98

Figure 24 Sungur Bey Mosque- Central Section of the Mahfil (A. Durukan Archive) …………………………………………………...…….…...98

Figure 25 Sungur Bey Mosque- Windows on the West Elevation (A. Durukan Archive) ………………………………………………………..……..99

Figure 26 Sungur Bey Mosque- Window Converted to the Door of the Tomb on the East Elevation (D. Esin) ………………………………………….…….…...99

Figure 27 Sungur Bey Mosque- Ribbed Cross Vault of the East Portal (D. Esin) …………………………………………………………………………...100

Figure 28 Sungur Bey Mosque- Detail from the Side Walls of the East Portal (D. Esin) …………………………………………………………………………...100

Figure 29 Sungur Bey Mosque- Stylized Animal Figures on the Side Walls of the East Portal (A. Durukan Archive) …………………………………… …..100

xii

Figure 30 Sungur Bey Mosque- Stylized Animal Figures by Öney and Otto-Dorn (Özkarcı 2001, Drawings 37-39) ………………………………………………….101

Figure 31 Sungur Bey Mosque- Side Niches of the East Portal (D. Esin) ……………………………………………………………………….…..101

Figure 32 Sungur Bey Mosque- Wooden Door of the East Portal (D. Esin) …………………………………………………………………….……..102

Figure 33 Sungur Bey Mosque- North Portal (A. Durukan Archive) …………………………………………………………...... 102

Figure 34 Sungur Bey Mosque- Detail from the Decoration of the North Portal (D. Esin) …………………………………………………………………………...102

Figure 35 Sungur Bey Mosque- Double-headed Eagle on the Keystone of the North Portal (D. Esin) …………………………………………….…….….….103

Figure 36 Sungur Bey Mosque- Wooden Door of the North Portal (D. Esin) …………………………………………………………………….…..…103

Figure 37 Sungur Bey Mosque- Wooden Door of the North Portal by Mülayim (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 42) ………………………………………….…103

Figure 38 Sungur Bey Mosque- Mihrab (Bakırer 1976, Fig. 69) …………………………………………………….………104

Figure 39 Sungur Bey Mosque - Mihrab (A. Durukan Archive) ……………………………………………………………..104

Figure 40 Sungur Bey Mosque- Stone Balustrate on the East of the Mahfil Section (D. Esin) ……………………………………………………...…………...105

Figure 41 Alaeddin Mosque in Niğde a- East Portal (Özkarcı 2001, Fig. 67) b- North Portal (D. Esin) . ………………………………………...………………105

Figure 42 Ak Medrese in Niğde- Portal (Blair and Bloom 1995, Fig. 179) …………………………………………………106

Figure 43 Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese- Frontal Detail from Portal (Öney 1978, Fig. 10)……………………………...…………………………….….106

Figure 44 Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese- Panel on the Right of Portal (Öney 1978, Fig. 34) ……….…………………………………………………..….106

Figure 45 Amasya Bimarhane- Portal Before Restoration (Kuban 2002, 144) ……………………………………………………………..….107

xiii

Figure 46 Amasya Bimarhane- Detail from Portal (Ögel 1987, Fig. 116a) ……………………………………………………….……107

Figure 47 Sivas Gök Medrese- Clustered Animal Figures on the Portal (Kuban 2002, 317) ………………………………………………………….……..107

Figure 48 Hüdavend Hatun Tomb in Niğde (D. Esin) ……………………………………………………………………..…….108

Figure 49 Hüdavend Hatun Tomb- Double Headed Eagle (D. Esin) …………………………………………………………………………...108

Figure 50 Church of Aght’amar– Figurative Decoration on the South-west (A. Durukan Archive) ……………………………………………………….…….108

Figure 51 Sungur Bey Mosque- Ribbed Cross Vault of the East Portal (D. Esin) …………………………………………………………………………...109

Figure 52 Sungur Bey Mosque- Profile of the Cross Vault (Gabriel 1962, Fig. 20) …………………………………………..…………….…..109

Figure 53 Template for the Transverse Ribs of Rheims Cathedral (Honnecourt 1959, Plate 44) ……………………………………………..………..109

Figure 54 Profile of Vaulting Arches in Cyprus: a- New Mosque in Nicosia; b- Cathedral Church of St. George of the Greeks in Famagusta (Enlart 1987, 151 Fig. 91; 254 Fig. 198) …………………………………….....…109

Figure 55 Great Mosque of Cordoba- Intersecting Ribs (Brend 1991, Fig. 28) ……………………………………………………………...110

Figure 56 Church of the Apostles at Ani- Intersecting Cross Aches of the Porch (Khatchatrian 1972, Fig. 57) ………………………………………..………110

Figure 57 Durham Cathedral- Rib Vaults (Domke 1959, 4) ………………………………………………………………...... 110

Figure 58 Castle of Krak des Chevaliers- Loggia Outside Banqueting Hall (Fedden 1957, 73) ……………………………………………………………..…..111

Figure 59 Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia- Ribbed Vaults (Enlart 1987, Plate X)…………………………………………….………………..111

Figure 60 Sungur Bey Mosque- Restitution of the Geometric Arrangement on the Tympanum of the East Portal (Bakırer 1994, 368 Fig. 4) ……… ……………111

Figure 61 Sungur Bey Mosque- Geometric Arrangement Above the North Portal (D. Esin) …………………………………..……………………………..…112 xiv

Figure 62 Saint-Etienne, Beauvais- Predecessor of the Rose Window (Cowen 1992, 49, Fig. 25) …………………………………………………..…….112

Figure 63 St. Denis- First Rose Window (Cowen 1992, 49, Fig. 26) ……………………………………………….………..112

Figure 64 Examples of Rose Windows in Europe: a- Notre Dame Paris- West Front (Branner 1967, Fig. 38); b- Chartres -West Front (Domke 1959, 6); c- Laon-North Transept (Cowen 1992, 53 Fig. 30); d- Bourges Cathedral- Portal of Christ (Domke 1959, 114) …………………………………………...…113

Figure 65 Examples of Rose Windows in Cyprus a - Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Famagusta (Enlart 1987, Plate XXXIII); b - Church of St. Mary of the Augustinians in Nicosia (Enlart 1987, 149 Fig. 86) ………………………..…….113

Figure 66 Alaaddin Mosque in Korkuteli- Rose Window Above the Portal (D. Esin)… ………………………………………………………………….…….113

Figure 67 Süleyman Paşa Medresesi at İznik- Round Windows (Ünal 2000, 135) ………………………………………………...………………..114

Figure 68 Hatuniye Mosque at Tokat- Round Window on the Portal (Çakmak 2001, 353, Fig. 106) ………………….…………………………………114

Figure 69 Cathedral of Ani-Round Window (S. Güven Archive)………………………………………………………………...114

Figure 70 Sungur Bey Mosque- Recessed Arch and Tympanum of the First Window on the South of the West Façade (D. Esin) ……………………….……..115

Figure 71 Sungur Bey Mosque- Recessed Arch and Tympanum of the Second Window on the South of the West Façade (D. Esin) …….…………….....115

Figure 72 Sungur Bey Mosque – Recessed Arch and Tympanum of the Third Window on the South of the West Façade (D. Esin) ……………………..115

Figure 73 Sungur Bey Mosque – Recessed Arch and Tympanum of the Fourth Window on the South of the West Façade (D. Esin) ……………………...115

Figure 74 Some Gothic Doorways in Cyprus; a- Church of St. Catherine in Nicosia (Enlart 1987, Plate XV); b-Church of St. Nicholas in Nicosia (Enlart 1987, Plate VIX)………………………………………………….………..116

Figure 75 Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia- Recessed Arches of the Windows on the South Façade (Enlart 1987, Plate VII) ………………………..…………...116

Figure 76 Bellapais Abbey in Cyprus- Recessed Arch at the Refectory (Enlart 1987, Plate.XXV) …………………………………………………..……..117

xv

Figure 77 Church of Aght’amar- Windows with Round Arched Mouldings (İpşiroğlu 2003, Fig. 4) ……………………………………………………………117

Figure 78 Kızıltepe Great Mosque-Detail from the Portal by Gabriel (Altun 1978, Fig. 107) . ………………………………………………..………….117

Figure 79 Ahi Yusuf Tomb in Antalya – Recessed Arch of One of the Windows (Riefstahl 1931, Fig. 91) …………………………………...……...…..117

Figure 80 Divriği Hospital- Portal (A. Durukan Archive) ………………………………………………..…………....118

Figure 81 Ahmed Gazi Medresesi at Peçin- Portal (A. Durukan Archive) ………………………………………………………….….118

Figure 82 Sungur Bey Mosque-Tympanum of the First Window on the South of the West Façade (Gabriel 1962, Plan XII) ……………………...…….....118

Figure 83 Sungur Bey Mosque- Geometric Arrangement on the Window Converted to the Door of the Tomb (D. Esin) ………………………………….…118

Figure 84 Amiens Cathedral- Windows in the Choir (Grodecki 1986, 64 Fig. 75) ………………………..……………………………...119

Figure 85 Salisbury Cathedral- Tracery of Arches at Cloisters (Stewart 1954, 129) ………………………………………….…………………….119

Figure 86 Bellapais Abbey in Cyprus- Tracery of Arches at Cloisters (Enlart 1987, XXIII) …………………………………………………………..…..120

Figure 87 Damascus Great Mosque- Marble Window Grilles of the Western Vestibule (Creswell 1958, Fig. 16) ………………………………………………..120

Figure 88 İlyas Bey Mosque at Balat- Marble Window Grilles at North Façade (Durukan 1988, 32 Fig. 9) ………………………………………………………....120

Figure 89 Sungur Bey Mosque- Moulded Band (Gabriel 1962, Fig. 23) ……………………………………………………..……..121

Figure 90 Sungur Bey Mosque- Profile of Clustered Piers (Özkarcı 2001, Fig. 41) ………………………………..……………………….….121

Figure 91 Sungur Bey Mosque- A Clustered Pier (D. Esin) …………………………………………………………………………...121

Figure 92 Cathedral of Ani- Clustered Piers (S. Güven Archive)………………………………………………………………...121 xvi

Figure 93 Sultan Han Between Konya Aksaray- Clustered Columns as Buttresses (Kuban 1999, 243) ………………………………………....…………..121

Figure 94 Divriği Great Mosque- Clustered Corner Columns of the North Portal (Kuban 1999, 101, 122) …………………………………………………………...122

Figure 95 Routes Followed by the Crusaders (Hamilton 1965, 303) ……………………………………………………………...122

Figure 96 Chief Caravan Routes in Anatolia (Önge 2004, Fig. 5.1) ……………………………………………………………...123

Figure 97 Sungur Bey Mosque- Masons’ Marks (D. Esin) ………………………………………………………………………..….123

xvii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In the second half of the 13th century, the heydays of the Anatolian Seljuks were long-gone, and the political unity was destroyed considerably as a result of Turkoman revolts on the one hand and the Mongol invasion on the other. (Vryonis 1971, 134) After the defeat of Köse Dağı in 1243, the Mongols began to occupy Anatolia and by 1251, Mongol invasion reached the Taurus Mountains and moved further to the south, to Harran, Suruç and Urfa. (Tuncer 1986, 39) Besides, Anatolia became a vassal state of the Mongols, who imposed their own fiscal institutions on those of the Seljuks. (Vryonis 1971, 135) In the fourth quarter of the 13th century, the Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate was no more than a symbolic entity. (Tuncer 1986, 40) Moreover, after the death of the last Seljuk Sultan in 1308, Anatolia began to be ruled by Ilkhanid governors. (Özkarcı 2001, 8)

In the meantime, the Turkomans, who were concentrating along the Cilician and western borders, substantially increased in number, when new Turkish tribes fleeding the Mongol conquest arrived in Anatolia. (Vryonis 1971, 133) Thus, more than twenty independent principalities parcelled Anatolia while half of these took form prior to the beginning of the 14th century. (Fig. 1) In western Anatolia the Principalities of Karasioğulları in Bergama, Balıkesir and Çanakkale; Saruhanoğulları in Manisa; Germiyanoğulları in Afyon and Kütahya; Aydınoğulları in Birgi, Aydın and İzmir; Menteşeoğulları in Milas, Muğla and Peçin; and the Ottomans in Söğüt, Bursa and İznik were established by the Turkomans. In central Anatolia, Karamanoğulları ruled around Konya, Karaman and Ermenek. On the south extended Eşrefoğulları in Beyşehir; Hamidoğulları in Eğridir, Uluborlu and Antalya; and Ramazanoğulları in Adana. On the Black Sea coast, Pervaneoğulları ruled in Sinop for a short time and then Candaroğulları was established around

1 Kastamonu and Sinop. (Aslanapa 1971, 168; Aslanapa 1993, 164; Cantay 2002, 15; Arık 1980, 111; Vryonis 1971, 138)

In eastern Anatolia, on the other hand, the Ilkhanid rule continued. Nevertheless, Turkoman tribal confederations were established in the region after the break up of the Ilkhanid Empire in 1335. Thus, Dulkadiroğulları extended in a buffer zone between southeast and central Anatolia, including Maraş, Gaziantep and Elbistan. Karakoyunlu and Akkoyunlu ruled in the east and south east, around Diyarbakır and Erzurum. In addition, Eretnaoğulları ruled in much of central and eastern Anatolia, including Sivas, Kayseri, Amasya, Tokat and Samsun.1 (Aslanapa 1971, 168; Aslanapa 1993, 164; Arık 1980, 111; Vryonis 1971, 139)

Thus, a very turbulent political environment prevailed in Anatolia in the beginning of the 14th century. Nevertheless, stability and prosperity began to recover gradually by the third and fourth decades of the 14th century, and consequently, an immense building activity started throughout Anatolia. (Vryonis 1971, 139) The principalities competed with each other for land, as well as for establishing their claims over their territories by their architectural achievements. The influence of the Anatolian Seljuks continued in architecture, however, innovations and experiments also marked this period. (Öney 1989, 1)

Sungur Bey Mosque (Fig. 2) was built in Niğde under these circumstances. The Mosque and the Tomb adjacent to it, were donated by the Ilkhanid governor of Niğde, Sungur Ağa, during the reign of the last Ilkhanid ruler Ebu Said Bahadır Han (1316-1335). The Mosque was a traditional Anatolian building in terms of its architecture and decoration in many respects. However, some of the architectural forms that were observed on the Mosque seemed to show some foreign interactions. The ribbed cross vault covering the iwan of the east portal, the geometric arrangements reminiscent of rose windows on the east and north façades, the recessed arches and tympana of the windows on the west façade and in the interior, some clustered piers inside the Mosque and the moulded band over them, diverged

______1 In addition, The Kingdom of Little Armenia in Cilicia, the Empire of Trebizond on the Black Sea coast and Byzantine Empire in the remaining provinces in the west also continued to rule in Anatolia during this period.

2 from the traditional architecture of Anatolia. (Bakırer 2000, 73-81; Tanyeli 1993, 158).

1.1 Recent Scholarship on the Mosque

Albert Gabriel made the first detailed study on Sungur Bey Mosque and accordingly he was the first scholar who focused on the foreign influences on the Mosque. In his book, Monuments Turcs d’Anatolie, published in 1931,2 he devoted a section to the Mosque, accompanied by its pictures and drawings. He discussed the architectural characteristics and decoration of the Mosque, as well as making a restitution for it. According to Gabriel (1962, 39), Sungur Ağa employed both Muslim and Christian artists in the construction of his Mosque. Muslim artists worked particularly in the decoration of the Mosque, while the Christian artists were the stonemasons. Gabriel associated the foreign elements of the Mosque with Gothic Architecture and he attributed them to Greek workers from Cyprus or Armenian workers from Çukurova. Subsequently, other scholars repeated this proposition as well; however, most of them focused on a possible Cypriot interaction, without even questioning.

Godfrey Goodwin also discussed the “Gothic forms” of the Mosque in his book A History of Ottoman Architecture, published in 1971. Similar to Gabriel, Goodwin suggested that stonemasons from Cyprus were brought over to assist in the building, due to a lack of local craftsman resulting from the turbulent environment in Anatolia. Furthermore, Goodwin demonstrated the similarity of the Gothic windows of the Mosque with those of the Monastery of Bellapaise in Cyprus.

Similarly, Uğur Tanyeli specifically focused on the “Gothic influences” observed on the Mosque, in his article “Batılılaşma Dönemi Öncesinin Türk Mimarlığında Batı Etkileri (14.-17. Yüzyıl)” published in 1993. Tanyeli maintained that some European artists, probably from Cyprus, worked in some sections of the Mosque, while Muslim artists and stonemasons from Anatolia worked in the decoration of its portals, mihrab and minber. Tanyeli (1993, 158) drew attention to a “transfer of labor” by the

______2 Gabriel’s book was translated into Turkish as Niğde Türk Anıtları by A. A. Tütenk in 1962.

3 traveling artists in those ages, as the “Gothic forms” of the Mosque could not be explained on the basis of an indirect influence from Europe.

Bakırer (2000, 82), on the other hand, specifically focused on some of the geometric arrangements on the portals and windows of the Mosque, which clearly indicated a “foreign interaction” in her article “Niğde Sungurbey Camisi’nin Taçkapı ve Pencereleri için Bazı Düşünceler”. In contrast to other scholars who repeated the proposition of Gabriel, Bakırer emphasized the necessity to consider interactions between the west (Europe) and the east, in addition to the interactions from the south (Cyprus) to the north. Furthermore, Bakırer drew attention to the importance of investigating historical events and traveling artists in this context.

In addition to the aforementioned publications, which specifically focused on the foreign interactions on the Mosque, several publications considered different aspects of Sungur Bey Mosque, from its inscription panels to its architectural characteristics and decoration.

Zeki Oral discussed the minber and the inscription panel on the minber of the Mosque in his article “Anadolu’da Sanat Değeri olan Ahşap Minberler” published in the fifth volume of the Vakıflar Magazine in 1962. Furthermore, A. A. Tütenk published the inscription panels of the Mosque in his article “Niğde’de Sungur Bey Camii Doğu Duvarında Farsça Pir Ahmet ve Kasım Hanlarla Sungur Beyle İlgili İki Kitabe”, presented in the 7th Congress of Turkish History in 1972.

Ömür Bakırer referred to the mihrab of Sungur Bey Mosque in her book Onüç ve Ondördüncü Yüzyıllarda Anadolu Mihrabları, published in 1976. R.H. Ünal, on the other hand, focused on the design and ornamentation of the north and east portals of the Mosque in his book Osmanlı Öncesi Anadolu-Türk Mimarisinde Taçkapılar, published in 1982.

Orhan Cezmi Tuncer devoted a section to Sungur Bey Mosque in his book Anadolu Selçuklu Mimarisi ve Moğollar, published in 1982. Tuncer considered other Ilkhanid buildings in Anatolia as well and made comparisons on different aspects of these

4 buildings such as plan, articulation of façade and architectural decoration.

Hüdavendigar Akmaydalı discussed Sungur Bey Mosque, together with other Eretna buildings in his article “Niğde Sungurbey Camii”, published in the Vakıflar Magazine in 1985. Akmaydalı considered the architectural characteristics of the Mosque only briefly. Moreover, he documented the present status of the building, established a chronology of the repairs and discussed the measures that have to be taken immediately for the restoration of the Mosque.

The most recent study on the Mosque was undertaken by Mehmet Özkarcı in 2001. Özkarcı’s book Niğde’de Türk Mimarisi, compiled the most up-to-date photographs and drawings of the Mosque. Özkarcı devoted a separate section to Sungur Bey Mosque in his book and considered the architectural characteristics, decoration, inscription panels and construction materials of the Mosque in detail.

Besides, Sungur Bey Mosque is mentioned in several books on Turkish art and architecture. Halil Ethem’s Niğde Kılavuzu, published in 1936; Ernst Diez, Oktay Aslanapa and M. M. Koman’s Karaman Devri Sanatı, published in 1950; C. E. Arseven’s Türk Sanatı Tarihi- Menşeinden Bugüne Kadar Mimari, Heykel, Resim, Süsleme ve Tezyini Sanatlar, published in 1955; Oktay Aslanapa’s Turkish Art and Architecture, published in 1971, Yüzyıllar Boyunca Türk Sanatı (14. yüzyıl), published in 1977 and Türk Sanatı, published in 1984; Metin Sözen’s Türk Mimarisinin Gelişimi ve Mimar Sinan, published in 1975; The Art and Architecture of Turkey, edited by E. Akurgal, published in 1980; Ayşıl Tükel Yavuz’ Anadolu Selçuklu Mimarisinde Tonoz ve Kemer, published in 1983; Gönül Öney’s Beylikler Devri Sanatı, XIV.-VX: Yüzyıl (1300-1453), published in 1989 are among these publications. Most of these scholars focused on the plan of the Mosque and they referred to the “Gothic influences” on the Mosque by repeating Gabriel’s proposition.

In addition, reference to Sungur Bey Mosque is found in a number of articles such as Oluş Arık’s “Turkish Architecture in Asia Minor in the Period of the Turkish Emirates” published in 1980; Nusret Çam’s “Erzurum’daki Yakutiye Medresesi ile İlgili Bazı Mülahasalar” published in 1988; and Howard Crane’s “Anadolu Beylik

5 Döneminde Mimari ve Himaye”, published in 2002.

Some scholars have specifically focused on the architectural decoration of the Mosque. Yıldız Demiriz’ Osmanlı Mimarisinde Süsleme - Erken Devir (1300-1453), published in 1979; Gönül Öney’s Anadolu Selçuklu Mimari Süslemesi ve El Sanatları, published in 1992; Selçuk Mülayim’s “Geometrik Kompozisyonların Çözümlenmesine Bir Yaklaşım” published in 1982 and “Selçuklu Geometrik Süslemeleri” published in 1990; and Muhammet Görür’s “Beylikler Dönemi Yapılarında Taş Süslemede Görülen Geçme Geometrik Kompozisyonlar” published in 2002 are among these publications.

1.2 Aim and Methodology of the Thesis

As the publications on Sungur Bey Mosque indicate, the Mosque is an outstanding example from the Principalities Period, not only with its delicate architectural decoration, but also with its foreign architectural elements, which clearly reflect the experimental and eclectic character of the period. In this context, the aim of this thesis is to take a critical look at the sources of the foreign influences, which are observed on the Sungur Bey Mosque and to question how such interactions could be possible in 14th century Anatolia. While Gabriel’s proposition on the employment of Christian workers from Cyprus will be considered as a viable option, other possibilities such as the impact of Armenian, Eastern and Western Gothic examples will also be evaluated in this study. In doing so, cultural and architectural activities in Anatolia during the Middle Ages will be scrutinized and this thesis will, hopefully, assist in shedding light on this somewhat obscure period as well.

It is essential to understand the social, cultural and political environment that has an impact on the creation of architectural forms. Accordingly, this study attempts to pursue a comprehensive approach, which considers social, political and cultural context, as well as a formal analysis. Literature survey and field studies in Niğde and Korkuteli form the basis of the study and the examples selected in the comparative study are based on a detailed literature survey on the subject.

The study consists of eight chapters. After an introductory chapter, the geography,

6 history and urban development of Niğde are investigated in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, a historical analysis of Sungur Bey Mosque is presented in the light of primary and secondary written sources. Chapter 4 focuses on the architectural characteristics and decoration of the Mosque. Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the traditional elements, which show a continuation on the Mosque, and new elements, which reflect the influence of foreign impacts. Accordingly, comparative studies are made with contemporary examples from Anatolia, Cyprus, Europe, Eastern Crusader States and Armenia, in an attempt to identify similarities or differences with Sungur Bey Mosque. In Chapter 6, some interactions, which are likely to be the sources of the foreign forms observed on the Mosque are evaluated and questioned. For the convenience of this study, these interactions are limited to the Crusades, trade relations and traveling artists.3 Finally, in Chapter 7, a conclusion is drawn as to the source of the foreign influences on the Sungur Bey Mosque, by gathering the findings of the comparative study, as well as the background study made in the previous chapters.

It is not easy to construct a distant past as it is, particularly in the case of a controversial building like Sungur Bey Mosque. Whatever the results of the comparative study suggest, the most important contribution of this thesis will be the questioning of the sources of the foreign influences on the Sungur Bey Mosque in a broad perspective, not only limited to Cyprus, but also considering other possible interactions from the east or the west. Thus, Sungur Bey Mosque will be evaluated in a different viewpoint, which considers historical events and a number of possible interactions. As Bakırer (2000, 82) suggests, such an approach will contribute to a better understanding of Sungur Bey Mosque and similar buildings in Anatolia. In that sense, it is hoped that this thesis will lead the way to subsequent researches made on similar buildings in Anatolia, as well.

______3 There may be more than one interaction in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque. Still, there may be other possible interactions, which are not considered in this study.

7 CHAPTER 2

HISTORY AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF NİĞDE

Throughout the centuries, several civilizations inhabited Niğde due to its strategic location, as well as its fertile land, rich underground reserves and abundant water resources. Each of these civilizations left a mark, whether substantial or small, on subsequent generations and this heritage made contributions of varying importance to the architecture as well. In the case of Sungur Bey Mosque, for instance, the plan of the Mosque and its traditional architectural decoration were a continuation of the Anatolian Seljuk style, while the reused marble columns of the Mosque was a Byzantine inheritance.

In this context, this chapter focuses on the geography, history and urban development of Niğde, as such a background study will facilitate our understanding of Sungur Bey Mosque and its place in the urban context. While the history and urban development of Niğde will be considered in a broad perspective starting from the pre-Turkish period, the special focus will be on the 13th and the 14th centuries. In addition, the accounts of the travelers, who visited Niğde, will be used to portray a picture of the city in the old ages.

2.1 Geographic Location of Niğde

Niğde is to the south of Kızılırmak River in Central Anatolia and it is surrounded by Konya, Ankara, Aksaray, Kırşehir, Nevşehir, Kayseri, Adana and İçel. The province has an approximate area of 7.312 km2, which extends on volcanic land partially covered by alluvium.4 It is enclosed by the Bolkar Mountains from the south, Aladağlar from the southeast, Melendiz Mountain from the west and Hasan ______4 The area of the province is obtained from the internet site of the Turkish Statistics Institute (http://www.die.gov.tr /TURKISH/ISTATIS/Esg2/51NIGDE/nufus1.htm).

8 Mountain from the northwest. Uluırmak, Karasu and Ecemiş Stream are the main rivers of the province and Karasu passes through the city center.

Having been founded on the plateau between Melendiz Mountain on the west and Aladağlar on the southeast, Niğde is the sole passage between these two mountains. Thus, the strategic location of Niğde made it an important center concerning the defence of the region. In addition, the ancient route that connected Kayseri to Adana Plain and subsequently to the Mediterranean coast and Syria passed through Niğde. (Darkot 1988, 9:253) This ancient route was used for commercial, as well as military purposes during the Hittite, Roman, Byzantine and Anatolian Seljuk Periods. (Gabriel 1962, 17; Tütenk 1967, 65) Hence, Niğde was a significant center on the transportation network of Anatolia and it still maintains its importance by connecting central Anatolia to the north, south and west.

2.2 History of Niğde

The history of Niğde, starting from the Paleolithic Ages to the end of the Ottoman Period will be considered briefly in the following section.

2.2.1 Niğde Before the Arrival of the Turks

The obsidian tools found around Kayseri and Niğde have revealed that the region was inhabited in the Paleolithic Ages and researches further demonstrate a continuous habitation during the Neolithic Period (7000-5000 B.C.) and First Bronze Age (3000-2000 B.C.). Acemhöyük near Aksaray was an important settlement during the Assyrian Trade Colonies (2000-1750 B.C.) and Hittites settled in the region starting from 3000 B.C.5 After the collapse of the Hittites, Tabal Confederation was established and Nahita became an important city during this period (1170-710 B.C.). Assyrians, Cilicians, Meds and Persians occupied the region ______5 Inscriptions belonging to Late Hittite Period revealed that the city was called “Nahita”, which was associated with the goddess of moon and fertility “Anahita”. Moreover, the city was called “Nahida” during the Med and Persian Periods and “Nikita” in the Hellenistic Period. In the Byzantine Period, it was named “Nahida-Negide-Nekite”. (Özkarcı 2001, 6) The city was first mentioned in the Anatolian Seljuk sources as “Nakida” or “Nekide”, when Kılıç Arslan II divided his domains among his sons. (Darkot 1988, 9:254) In addition, a number of variations of this name, such as “Nakita-Nikide-Nigide-Nikte” were used during the Anatolian Seljuk Period. In the Ottoman Period, the city was called “Nikde” or Nigde” and it was only after the use of the Latin alphabet that it was finally named “Niğde”. (Özkarcı 2001, 6)

9 between 710 B.C. and 332 B.C. (Anonim 1982, 8:6159-6162) Following Alexander the Great’s conquest in 334 B.C., Hellenistic culture began to flourish in the region. (Özkarcı 2001, 6; Anonim 1982, 8:6162) In 332 B.C., Niğde became a subject of the Cappadocian Kingdom, which was established in the Cappadocia region by Ariarates I. (Anonim 1982, 8: 6162)

As the Cappadocian Kingdom lost its authority in the region, Cappadocia became a Roman State in 17 A.D. During the Roman Period, Christianity began to spread in the region. Following the freedom of religion and worship in 313 A.D., Niğde region became an important and influential religious center, with an episcopate established in Poros (Bor) near Tyana (Kemerhisar). (Tütenk 1967, 71-72) When the Roman Empire split into East and West in 395 A.D., Niğde was annexed to the Byzantine Empire. (Anonim 1982, 8:6162) During the Byzantine Period, Tyana (Kemerhisar), located 23 km. southwest of Niğde, maintained its importance as a religious center. (Özkarcı 2001, 6)

Sassanids and then Arabs attacked and captured the region several times starting from the 7th century. (Özkarcı 2001, 7). Although the Sassanid invasion, which started in 620, was averted successfully, it was not possible to stop the Arab attacks. When Arabs occupied eastern Anatolia and Syria, Byzantines took measures to defend the Taurus passages and Niğde region.6 Nevertheless, Arab attacks reached the region in 699 and Arkelais and Tyana were occupied and sacked several times. Tyana was destroyed severely in the last Abbasid attack in 931 and it was abandoned by its Christian population. From this date onwards, Tyana lost its importance as a religious center and Niğde replaced it as a military stronghold. (Tütenk 1967, 74) Arabs dominated in the region until it was re-captured by the Byzantine Empire in 965. (Anonim 1982, 8:6162)

2.2.2 Niğde After the Arrival of the Turks

In the 11th century, Turkish tribes began to make attacks to Anatolia. Following the victory of Manzikert in 1071, Anatolian Seljuks conquered Niğde region in 1086- ______6 The Byzantines not only established a new military formation in the region, but also opened a new road that replaced the ancient Roman military route. In addition, city walls, castles and towers were built and a defence line was established. (Tütenk 1967, 73)

10 1087, during the reign of Kutalmışoğlu Süleyman Şah. (Özkarcı 2001, 7) The first Crusaders reached the region in 1097 and captured Niğde and Aksaray. (Anonim 1982, 8:6162) Meanwhile, soldiers from Niğde gained reputation for their courage, and Kılıç Arslan II gave the title of “Darü’l-Pehlivaniyye” to Niğde. (Özkarcı 2001,7)

After Kılıç Arslan II destroyed Danishmendids and achieved unity, he divided his domains among his sons in 1186. Consequently, Niğde was granted to Arslanşah, to be ruled semi-independently as a province of the Anatolian Seljuk capital, Konya. (Anonim 1982, 8:6163) Following the death of Kılıç Arslan II, Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev I ascended the throne in 1192. İzzeddin Keykavus I succeeded him in 1211 and he appointed Emir-i Ahur Zeyneddün Beşare as the governor of Niğde. (Tütenk 1967, 76)

Anatolian Seljuks had their golden age between 1219 and 1237, during the reign of Alaaddin Keykubad I. Niğde became an important military center because of its strategic location and parallel developments took place in the urban planning of the city.7(Darkot 1988, 9:254) After the execution of Zeyneddün Beşare in 1226, Alaaddin Keykubad I appointed a Turkoman ruler, İlhan Nogo, as the governor of Niğde. Moreover, he accommodated crowded Turkish tribes in the region and patronized trade and merchants. Thus, Niğde became not only a populous city, but also one of the richest and outstanding cities of this period. (Tütenk 1967, 77)

The golden age of the Anatolian Seljuks came to an end after the death of Alaaddin Keykubad I and retrogation started during the reign of Gıyasettin Keyhüsrev II. (Tütenk 1967, 78) The Turkoman revolt of Baba İshak in 1239-40 weakened the Seljuk authority considerably and after the defeat of Köse Dağı in 1243, Anatolia became a vassal state of the Mongols. (Vryonis 1971, 134) The pressures of the Ilkhanids increased gradually especially after the sack of Aksaray by the Ilkhanid commander Baycu Noyan in 1256. (Anonim 1982, 8:6163)

Muineddin Pervane gained power during the reign of Kılıç Arslan IV and he appointed Hatıroğlu Şerafeddin as the governor-general (beylerbeyi) of Niğde in ______7 See Section 2.3 for the urban development in Niğde during this period.

11 1262. Hatıroğlu revolted against the Ilkhanids in 1276, however he was unsuccessful. (Anonim 1982, 8:6163; Özkarcı 2001,7)

Mamluks invaded eastern Anatolia and defeated the Ilkhanids at Kayseri in 1277. (Vryonis 1971, 134) After Mamluks withdrew from Anatolia, pressures of Ilkhanids increased. Finally, an Ilkhanid army, headed by Geyhatu, marched into Aksaray in 1286. Aksaray was released from the destruction of the Ilkhanids. After this event, however, Niğde and Aksaray suffered from the sack and theft of the Seljuk statesman and Ilkhanid commanders. In addition, a severe drought and famine struck Niğde in 1300. (Anonim 1982, 8:6163)

In the final epoch of the Anatolian Seljuks, the financial administration of the state was carried out by the Ilkhanids. Moreover, Anatolia began to be ruled by Ilkhanid governors after the death of the last Anatolian Seljuk Sultan in 1308. (Özkarcı 2001, 7-8) Timurtaş was appointed as the governor of Anatolia during the reign of the Ilkhanid ruler, Ebu Said Bahadır Han (1316-1335). Meanwhile, a Mongol tribe was accommodated near Niğde to protect the passages. (Darkot 1988, 9:254) Sungur Ağa was one of the leaders of this tribe. Subsequently, he became the governor of Niğde and donated the Mosque that was named after him. (Gabriel 1962, 18)

When Timurtaş, the governor of Anatolia, fled to Egypt in 1327, he left Alaeddin Eretna as his delegate. Eretna declared his freedom in 1335, after the death of Ebu Said Bahadır Han and established himself as the independent ruler of much of central and eastern Anatolia, including Niğde and Aksaray. (Göde 1994, 178; Uzunçarşılı 1964, IV:309) The region was ruled by the Eretnaoğulları until Karamanoğlu Alaeddin Ali Bey captured it in 1366-67. (Özkarcı 2001, 8)

Niğde continued its importance during the Karamanid Period. Kadı Burhaneddin Ahmed besieged the city in 1395, however he was unsuccessful. He sacked and destroyed the city again in 1396. (Özkarcı 2001, 8) When Yıldırım Bayezid took over the Karaman territory in 1398, Niğde and Aksaray became a subject of the Ottomans. However, Ottoman dominance was short lived. After the defeat of Ankara War in 1402, Timur gave the Karaman territory to Karamanoğlu Mehmed Bey II,

12 and his brother Ali Bey became the ruler (emir) of Niğde. (Anonim 1982, 8:6164)

Ottomans captured Niğde in 875 Hicri (1470-71), during the reign of Fatih Sultan Mehmet. (Darkot 1988, 9:255) The city showed a substantial economic development between 1550 and 1600 and peace prevailed in the region until the deteriorating economic life affected Niğde as well. In the 17th century, the city suffered a great deal from the Celali revolts.8(Özkarcı 2001, 9) The ayans gained power in the 18th century and Çapanoğulları, who were dominant in Central Anatolia, controlled Niğde region during this period. (Anonim 1982, 8:6164)

During the Ottoman Period, Niğde lost its importance and became a secondary city after Konya and Kayseri. Until the middle of the 19th century, Niğde was one of the sanjak cities (sancak merkezi) within the Karaman State. Later it became a sanjak city of the Konya province. In the Republican era, Niğde became an administrative province in 1924. (Darkot 1988, 9:255; Özkarcı 2001, 9)

2.3 Urban Development in Niğde

During the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Tyana (Kemerhisar), located 23 km south-west of Niğde was the principal settlement of the region and there was no significant settlement in the present city center until the 9th and 10th centuries. (Özkarcı 2001, 10) The limited information on the urban development in Niğde during the Byzantine Period reveals that Niğde replaced Tyana when the latter was destroyed in the last Abbasid attacks in 931. Today, nothing remains from the Roman or Byzantine Periods in the city center. Nevertheless there are some churches from the Byzantine Period in the environs of Niğde.9 (Özkarcı 2001, 9-10)

The city was first mentioned in the Anatolian Seljuk sources as “Nakide” or “Nekide”, when Kılıç Arslan II divided his domains among his sons in 1186. (Özkarcı 2001, 6) Niğde started to develop starting from the 12th century and it became one of the important centers of the Anatolian Seljuks in the 13th century.

______8 Celali leader Tavil Mehmet sacked Niğde and Aksaray in 1603 and most of the population abandoned the city. In addition, Niğde was severely destroyed in the Abaza Mehmed Paşa Revolt and Gürcü Abdünnebi Revolt in 1623 and 1648, respectively. (Özkarcı 2001, 9) 9 Constantine- Helena Church at Andaval (Aktaş) was excavated by Sacit Pekak.

13 (Darkot 1988, 9:254) Kadı Ahmed stated that the earliest city walls and the big marble gate located on the south were built during the reign of Süleyman Şah. In addition, Kadı Ahmed also mentioned an inscription panel that was located on the Ereğli Gate. According to this inscription panel, the city was built up during the period of Kılıç Arslan II. (Turan 1971, 234, 342) Unfortunately, this inscription panel did not survive.

City walls were built in Niğde during the reign of İzzeddin Keykavus I. However, the most important urban development took place during the reign of Alaaddin Keykubad I. Niğde became not only an important military center, but also a populous and rich city during this period. Alaeddin Mosque was built by the governor of Niğde, Zeyneddün Beşare, in 1223. Moreover, the city was planned in three sections - the citadel, city and suburbs according to the urban development tradition of the age.10 The citadel was surrounded by the inner city, called “Medine- şehristan” and the outer city, called “Birun”. Gardens, vineyards and orchards were located outside the city and bridges over Karasu connected this rural area to the city. (Tütenk 1967, 77)

As it can be noted on the plan of the city, Niğde developed within the city walls during the Anatolian Seljuk Period.11 (Fig. 3) Alaeddin District (Mahalle), which was located on the Alaeddin Hill, extending on the south-north direction, encompassed the citadel area. Alaeddin Mosque built in 1223 and Hatıroğlu Fountain built in 1267-68 were located in the citadel area. Alaeddin District, together with Tepeviran District that laid towards its north, formed the old nucleus of the city. (Darkot 1988, 9: 255)

Starting from the Ilkhanid Period, the city began to grow beyond the city walls, towards the west of the old nucleus. Hüdavend Hatun Tomb, built in 1312, was located to the north-west of the old nucleus, whereas Sungur Bey Mosque, built in 1335-36, was located near to the south gate of the city.

______10 For more information on the urban development tradition of the age, see (Tanyeli 1987). 11 According to the accounts of Ebubekir Behram-ı Dimeşki and Katip Çelebi, Niğde was surrounded by three concentric rows of city walls. (Konyalı 1974, 49; Özkarcı 2001, 12) See Section 2.4 for further information.

14 In the Eretnaid Period (1335-1366), Gündoğdu Tomb and Sarı Han, were built in 1344 and 1357, respectively. (Özkarcı 2001, 11) These two buildings were located towards the west and north-west of the old nucleus. Furthermore, Gündoğdu Tomb was very close to the Hüdavend Hatun Tomb, built during the Ilkhanid period.

During the Karamanid Period (1366-1470), the city continued to develop around the citadel area. The two-storeyed Ak Medrese, Şah Masjid and Eskiciler Masjid, built in 1409, 1413 and 1421 respectively, were all located around the citadel area. (Tütenk 1967, 85) In addition, Hanım Mosque, built in the 15th century, was located towards the east of the old nucleus, near to the Karasu stream. (Darkot 1988, 9:256)

After the Ottomans captured the city in 1470-71, the citadel was repaired by İshak Paşa. (Darkot 1988, 9: 255) However, as Niğde lost its military importance in this period, the inner citadel and the city walls no longer served their old function.

In the 16th century, majority of the districts were built around mosques and masjids in Niğde. Alaeddin District was the only district in the citadel area.12 (Özkarcı 2001, 10-11) Dışarı Cami, Sokullu Mehmet Paşa Bedesteni and Rahmaniye Mosque were among the outstanding buildings of the Ottoman Period. Dışarı Mosque (16th century) located near Sarı Han, and Sokullu Mehmet Paşa Bedesteni (towards 1574) located near to Sungur Bey Mosque, were outside the citadel area. Nonetheless, Rahmaniye Mosque (Kale Mosque), built in 1747, was on the Alaeddin Hill, within the citadel area. (Darkot 1988, 9: 256; Özkarcı 2001, 11)

By the end of the 19th century, Niğde had three main areas; namely Tepe-Viran, Kaya-Başı and Şehir-İçi. In addition, a graveyard extended between these areas.13 (Darkot 1988, 9: 255) According to “Konya Vilayet Salnamesi” dating from 1877, there were 20 mosques, 15 masjids, 10 schools, 1 bedesten and 550 shops in Niğde. (Özkarcı 2001, 12)

______12 According to a “Tapu Tahrir Defteri” dating from 1507, there were 29 districts in the city center, and 2 of these districts were inhabited by non-Muslims. Moreover, there were 192 shops, 1 bedesten, 1 han and 1 marketplace in Niğde during this period. (Özkarcı 2001, 10-11) 13 Tepeviran District is to the north of the Alaeddin District. Kayabaşı District, on the other hand, extends on the western slope of the city. Today, this graveyard is replaced by a park and buildings. (Özkarcı 2001, 11)

15 2.4 Niğde in the Travelers’ Books

Travelers’ books give invaluable information on the economic, social and cultural life, as well as on the urban fabric.14 As such, the accounts of travelers, such as Yakut el-Hamevi, Ibn Battuta, Ebubekir Behram-ı Dimeşki, Evliya Çelebi, Katip Çelebi, Lucas, Kinneir, Texier and Cuinet will be considered in this section to present a picture of the city in the past.

Yakut el-Hamevi (1178-1229) referred to Niğde as “Nekida” in his account and he described it as a “small and old city.” Nevertheless, Hamevi did not give further information regarding the city. (Özkarcı 2001, 11)

Conversely, Ibn Battuta (1989, 25), who visited Niğde towards 1333, described it as a “big and populous city”. However, Battuta mentioned that some districts were in ruins. Furthermore, he gave some clues regarding the location of the city in the Middle Ages. Accordingly, he stated that Karasu Stream divided the city into two sections and one of the bridges over Karasu Stream was located inside the city. (Ibn Batuta, 1989, 25) Based on Ibn Battuta’s account, Gabriel (1962, 22) suggested that, Niğde was located further to the east of the old nucleus of the city, continuing on the other side of the Karasu Stream in the Middle Ages.

Ebubekir Behram-ı Dimeşki referred to Niğde in his book “Terceme-i Coğrafiyay-i Kebir” and he gave some invaluable information on the urban fabric of the city. Dimeşki recorded that Niğde citadel was surrounded by three concentric rows of walls. He mentioned the mosques of “Ala-ed-din” and “Sungur Tekin” in the citadel area; the two-storeyed medrese of “Ala-ed-din”, which was called “Beyza”; the Mosque of Hasan Çelebi; sumptuous hamams of the city and the roads which extended towards the west of the city. According to Dimeşki’s account, there were ten mosques within the city walls, however he did not give further detail regarding these mosques. (Konyalı 1974, 49)

______14 Travelers’ books may give very realistic descriptions. Nevertheless, they should be treated with caution and evaluated in a comparative study.

16 Evliya Çelebi (1970, 5:80) visited Bor, which was close to Niğde, however he also referred to Niğde by stating that it could be spotted from the minaret of the mosque in Bor.

Conversely, Katip Çelebi, who visited Niğde in the first half of the 17th century, gave a detailed description of the city in his “Cihannüma”. He referred to the stone walls of the city, which were constructed in three concentric rows.15 Besides, he mentioned the Mosques of Sultan Alaeddin and Sungur Bey, which were in the citadel area, the two storeyed-medrese building, Hasan Çelebi Mosque, sumptuous hamams in the city and the roads, which extended towards the west of the city.16 According to his account, there were eleven mosques in the citadel area and within the city walls. (Özkarcı 2001, 12) Nevertheless, he did not give further detail regarding these mosques.

Paul Lucas (1712, 182), who passed through Niğde in the beginning of the 18th century, referred to it as “Niguedee”. Lucas recorded that it was once a very big city. All the same, he also stated that it was falling in ruins every day.

Kinneir, who visited Niğde in 1813, gave some information concerning the location of the city. Kinneir stated that the city was located around a citadel that was in ruins. However, he also mentioned separate districts, which were established on the hills in the vicinity. Besides, he referred to some ancient marble columns, which were scattered in the streets. (Darkot 1988, 9: 253, 255)

Similarly, Texier (2002, 111), who visited Niğde in 1834, talked about the location and the urban fabric of the city. Texier stated that Niğde was established three miles to the southwest of Andabalis, in the place of the old Tyana. Moreover, he mentioned that the town was located on a hill, and he referred to numerous districts that were spotted on the hills in the vicinity. He cited the Seljukid tombs in the “Arab-Armenian architectural style” in the Kayabaşı District. Furthermore, he made

______15 Katip Çelebi’s description of Niğde is similar to the account of Ebubekir Behram-ı Dimeşki, in many respects. 16 Although Alaeddin Mosque is in the citadel area, Sungur Bey Mosque is located outside the citadel. This example illustrates why the travelers books should be used with caution and vis-à-vis other evidence.

17 detailed sketches of Hüdavend Hatun Tomb. Texier also mentioned a mosque in ruins, dating from the 15th century and a medrese building. He gave detailed information on the medrese building, by mentioning its plan, architectural details and decoration.17

Texier (2002, 111) pointed out to the abundance of Islamic buildings from the 13th and 15th centuries. Contrary to what Kinneir wrote, Texier stated that there were not any ancient remains. According to Gabriel (1962, 17), the ancient remains that Kinneir mentioned were probably reused in new buildings and therefore Texier could not locate them when he visited the city 21 years later.

Finally, Cuinet recorded that there were 84 mosques and masjids, 36 medreses, 1 library, 3 churches and 6 hamams in the city in the 19th century. (Darkot 1988, 9: 255)

As the accounts of the travelers indicate, Niğde was once a “big and populous city” due to its military importance in the Anatolian Seljuk Period. The city was established on the Alaeddin Hill, around a citadel and it was surrounded by three concentric rows of walls. The city developed within the city walls in the Anatolian Seljuk Period; however, it began to grow towards the west of this old nucleus starting from the Ilkhanid Period. As the city lost its military importance during the Ottoman Period, the city walls and the citadel no longer served their original function. During this period, new districts were established in the hills in the vicinity, as mentioned in the accounts of Kinneir and Texier. Moreover, Niğde suffered a great deal from the Celali revolts in the 17th century and this explained the ruinous condition of the city that was mentioned in the accounts of some travelers in the 18th and 19th centuries.

______17 According to the description of Texier, white marble was used in the first storey of the medrese. The column capitals were in the Arab style, while the arches were in the Magribi style. The portal of the medrese was placed like the mosque in Kayseri. There was a square courtyard inside. Texier was, without any doubt, talking about Ak Medrese, built in 1409, during the Karamanid rule.

18 2.5 Sungur Bey Mosque in the Urban Context

Sungur Bey Mosque and the tomb adjacent to it, lay on the southwest of the Alaeddin Hill, outside the citadel of Niğde. (Fig. 3) The Mosque was located near to the south gate of the city, adjacent to the Bedesten of Sokullu Mehmet Paşa, which dated back to the Ottoman Period.

Sungur Bey Mosque was constructed in the Ilkhanid Period, when the city began to grow beyond the city walls. Hence, it was located in the Alaeddin District, which formed the old nucleus of the city. As the accounts of travelers also reveal, new districts emerged in Niğde throughout the centuries. However, Alaeddin District preserved its importance, with its proximity to the core of the city. Thus, Sungur Bey Mosque still maintains its significance in the urban fabric of Niğde and it serves as the Friday Mosque of the city.

19

CHAPTER 3

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Sungur Bey Mosque is a controversial building in terms of its date and period. As the Mosque does not have an inscription panel related to its construction, it is dated differently in various sources. For instance, it is considered as an Ilkhanid building by some scholars, and as an Eretnaid and even as a Karamanid building by others.18

Hence, a historical analysis of Sungur Bey Mosque will be presented in this chapter to shed light on its date and period. Such an analysis will also be useful in determining its donor and the artists/workers who worked in the construction of the Mosque. Inscription panels of the Mosque will be considered first, as they give the most accurate and reliable information concerning the buildings. Next, other primary written sources, such as the foundation charter of the Mosque and archive documents will be investigated in detail. The chapter will conclude by the accounts of the travelers.

3.1 Inscriptions

The inscription panels on the mihrab, as well as those on the wooden doors of the north and east portals have a decorative purpose and they include verses from the

______18 Scholars such as Arseven (1955, 175), Diez (1950, 160), Aslanapa (1971, 176), Sözen (1975, 43), Akmaydalı (1985, 151), Tuncer (1986, 35), Öney (1989, 11) and Tanyeli (1993, 158) suggest that the Mosque was constructed in 1335. Scholars such as Gabriel (1962, 38) Bakırer (1976, 213) and Özkarcı (2001, 50) assume that the Mosque could be constructed before 1335. Demiriz (1979, 55) on the other hand, considers the construction date of the Mosque as 1338. In addition, some scholars such as Gabriel (1962, 37), Tuncer (1986, 35) and Özkarcı (2001, 51), suggest that it was an Ilkhanid building, while others such as Aslanapa (1971, 176) Sözen (1975, 43) and Akmaydalı (1985, 147) accept it as an Eretnaid building. Arseven (1955, 47), Diez (1950, 160), Demiriz (1979, 55) and Öney (1992, 13), on the other hand, consider it as a Karamanid building.

20 Qur’an.19 Nevertheless, the inscription panel on the door of the east portal is important in the sense that it documents the artist of the wooden door as Hacı Muhammed. (Özkarcı 2001, 69-72) The inscription panels on the east portal, on the base of the north minaret and on the minber, on the other hand, are documentary and they will be investigated in detail in the following sections.

3.1.1 Inscription Panels on the East Portal

Sungur Bey Mosque does not have an inscription panel related to its construction. According to Gabriel (1962, 34), the marble panel placed on the arch of the east portal is probably the inscription panel related to its construction. (Fig. 4) At present, its surface has been completely mutilated.

Yet, there is another inscription panel on the doorframe of the east portal.20 (Fig. 5) This inscription panel, which has the date Hicri 874 (1469), is a decree concerning taxes and it is inscribed with the order of Pir Ahmet Han and Kasım Han, sons of Karamanid Sultan İbrahim. This decree specifies a tax exemption for the inhabitants of Niğde for angora wool, saltpeter, cingi stone, linseed oil and sheep. (Gabriel 1962, 38) The original inscription panel and its transcription is as follows:

______19 The mihrab of the Mosque is surrounded by “Ayete’l Kürsi”, written in sülüs script. The inscription panel on the wooden door of the north portal contains “Hicr” and “Zümer” verses, in sülüs script. The door on the east portal, on the other hand, has two inscription panels written in nesih script. The inscription panel on the right has “Cin”, “Tevbe” and “Hicr” verses, while the one on the left documents the artist of the door as Hacı Muhammed. (Özkarcı 2001, 69-72) 20 This marble inscription panel, which has the dimensions of 0.40 x 3.00 m., has 2 lines, inscribed in nesih script.

21 1. Ketebe haze’l-mestur bi-hükm-i Sultan bin Sultan Sultan Pir Ahmed Han ve Kasım Han ibney Karaman Han halledellahu devletehüma ve eyyede memleketehüma amin ya Rabbe’l-alemin ez beray-i mal tiftik ve güherçile ve cingi. 2. ve bezr ve kabcur ağnam ki ezin bede’atha ba’de’l-yevm ez cema’at-ı darü’l- pehlivaniyye hiç çizi nestanend ez ümera ve nevvab ve men se’a fi ibtalihi fe’aleyhi la’netüllahi ve’l-melaiketi ve’n-nasi ecma’in. Harrere fi sene erba’ ve seb’in ve semane mi’e. (Özkarcı 2001, 68-69)

This inscription panel either documents a repair that is made during the Karamanid Period or points to a common practice of locating decrees concerning taxes. (Bakırer 2000, 74) In the Middle Ages, it was a common practice to place inscription panels about taxes in locations where they could be read by the public easily.21 Hence, it is probable that this inscription was placed as a result of this common practice, rather than a repair. Accordingly, it is not directly related with the building itself, although it gives clues regarding the social and economic life in the Karamanid period.

3.1.2 Inscription Panel on the Base of the North Minaret

The inscription panel on the base of the north minaret is also a decree concerning taxes and it has the date Hicri 736 (1335-36).22 (Fig. 6) This decree specifies a tax and duty exemption for the Christians in Niğde, with the order of Emir Saif Al Devlet Vel-din.23 According to Gabriel (1962, 37), the Christians mentioned in the decree were those workers, who came from Cyprus or Çukurova and worked in the construction of the Mosque. Several other scholars also repeated this proposition.24

______21 Inscription panels about taxes are also observed in Harput Great Mosque and the Citadel of Ankara. The inscription panel on the Harput Great Mosque is a decree written with the order of Artuqid Sultan, Fahr üd-din Kara Arslan. This decree, which has the date Hicri 541, abolishes some taxes taken from the poor. (Oral 1967, 141) Similarly, the inscription panel on the main entrance gate of the Citadel of Ankara is also related to some taxes taken from the peasants. It has the date Hicri 730 (1330), which corresponds to the reign of the Ilkhanid Sultan Ebu Said. This decree identifies those peasants, who will pay taxes for the yield of grain and for the sale of animals and it gives information on the payments. (Bakırer 1998, 187) Mosques, as well as market places were important gathering places for the public. Thus, inscription panels about taxes were placed on the portals, walls and the main entrance gates with the intention that they would be seen by the public easily. 22 This marble inscription panel, which has the dimensions of 0.40 x 1.20 m., has 3 lines, inscribed in nesih script. 23 Özkarcı (2001, 68), however, considers this name as “Seyfü’d-devle ve’d-din (Seyfeddin)”. 24 Scholars such as Tütenk (1972, 404), Goodwin (1971, 25), Aslanapa (1971, 176), Arık (1980, 117), Akmaydalı (1985, 151) and Özkarcı (2001, 68) have repeated this proposition; however they specifically focus on an interaction from Cyprus.

22 The original and the transcription of the inscription panel is as follows:

1. Bismillah ve’l-hamdilillah ve selamun ‘ala Muhammedü’r-Resulüllah der-şu- hur-i sene sitte ve selasin ve seb’a mi’e cihet. 2. zad-ı ahiret hükm-i emir-i mu’azzam Seyfü’d-devle ve’d-din eyyedallahu devletehu ber-an-cümlet başed bedanend 3. ki ba’de’l-yevm der mahruse-i Nekide ez-sair-i gurabay-i millet-i Mesih cizye vu harac nestanend. (Özkarcı 2001, 68)

According to Gabriel (1962, 37), “Saif Devlet Vel-din” mentioned in the inscription panel, was Sungur Ağa, the donor of the Mosque.25 Similarly, Tütenk (1972, 404) considered “Emir Seyfe’l Devle” as the nickname of Sungur Bey. Moreover, Özkarcı (2001, 68) drew attention to the use of some words in the inscription panel that were reserved for the sultans. Accordingly, Özkarcı suggested that Sungur Bey declared his independence after the death of the Ilkhanid ruler Ebu Said Bahadır Han.

Although this inscription panel just pointed to a tax exemption, some scholars assumed its date as the construction date of the Mosque. However, scholars such as Gabriel (1962, 38), Bakırer (1976, 213) and Özkarcı (2001, 50) also considered the possibility that this inscription panel could be placed after the construction of the Mosque. Consequently, the Mosque can be dated before 1335 as well.

3.1.3 Inscription Panel on the Minber

Another inscription panel is placed on the original minber of Sungur Bey Mosque, which is located in the Dışarı Mosque (Çelebi Hüsameddin Mosque) in Niğde today. The wooden minber has rectangular inscription panels on both sides in sülüs script. (Fig. 7, 8)

______25 As the study on the history of Niğde revealed, a Mongol tribe was accommodated near Niğde to protect the passages during the Ilkhanid period. (Darkot 1988, 9:254) Sungur Ağa was one of the leaders of this tribe and subsequently, he became the governor of Niğde.

23 The two inscription panels on the left identify the artist of the minber as Hoca Ebubekir, the clerk of Sungur Ağa. (Fig. 7) The original and the transcription of this inscription panel is as follows:

“1. Amel_i el-abdü’z-zaif el-muhtac ila rahmetillahi Te’ala

2. ve gufranehu Hoca Ebubekir ibn Mu’allim katibuhu.” (Özkarcı 2001, 70)

The two panels on the right, on the other hand, specify the donor of the Mosque as Seyfeddin Sungur Ağa, and the Sultan who was governing at that period as Sultan Ebusaid. (Fig. 8) The original and the transcription of this inscription panel is as follows:

“1. Fi eyyami’s-Sultani’l-a’zam Ebu Sa’id hallede mülkehu

2. Mimma emere el-emir Seyfeddin Sungur Ağa etale bakahu.” (Özkarcı 2001, 70)

Although this inscription panel does not specify a date, it is possible to infer a range for the construction date of the Mosque. As Ebu Said Bahadır Han reigned between 1316 and 1335, the construction date of the Mosque must be within this range. (Gabriel 1962, 37)

Thus, Sungur Bey Mosque was an Ilkhanid building, donated by Sungur Ağa, during the reign of the Ilkhanid ruler Ebu Said Bahadır Han. The construction date of the Mosque could not be determined definitely, however according to its inscription panels, it was constructed either in 1335 or before this date. The inscription panel on the east portal related to taxes was added during the Karamanid Period and it was important in the sense that it gave some information on the social and economic life

24 in Niğde during the 15th century.

Besides, the inscription panels of the Mosque give invaluable information concerning the artists and workers, who were employed in the Mosque. Accordingly, the original minber and the wooden door of the east portal were made by Muslim artists, Hoca Ebubekir and Hacı Muhammed, respectively. Furthermore, Gabriel (1962, 37) suggests that Christian workers were also employed in the construction of the Mosque, based on the inscription panel on the base of the north minaret. According to Gabriel, Christian stonemasons from Çukurova or Cyprus, worked in the construction of the Mosque and accordingly took advantage of the tax exemption mentioned in the decree.

3.2 Foundation Charter and Archive Documents

Only a few foundation charters survived from the 13th and 14th centuries and likewise, the foundation charter of Sungur Bey Mosque have not survived. However, there is some information concerning the Mosque in the archive documents.

In reference to the archival documents of the 14th century, the villages of Sazalca, Andermeson, Gökbaz, and half of Alayı were donated to the Sungur Bey Mosque. In addition, according to the Land Register (Tahrir Defteri) dated Hicri 881 (1476), the villages of Alayı, Sazaliçe, Yayla and Andermeson, 3 vineyards, 2 land, 1 restaurant, 2 shops and 3 shoe-shops were donated to the Mosque and they were under the administration of Mevlana İlyas. Besides, the Mosque had an income of 2.865 akçe, 3.563 akçe, 5.680 akçe and 14.070 akçe in 1476, 1500, 1522 and 1584, respectively. (Özkarcı 2001, 72)

3.3 The Mosque in the Travelers’ Books

Although Niğde is mentioned in several travelers’ books26, reference to Sungur Bey Mosque is not found in most of them. Nonetheless, Ebubekir Behram-ı Dimeşki and Katip Çelebi refer to Sungur Bey Mosque in their accounts. (Konyalı 1974, 49;

______26 See Section 2.4.

25 Özkarcı 2001, 12) Both of these travelers state that Sungur Bey Mosque “was in the citadel” which sounds erroneous.

26

CHAPTER 4

ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DECORATION

Architectural characteristics and decoration of Sungur Bey Mosque will be studied in detail in this chapter. Hence, this study will form the base for the next chapter, where the similarities or differences from the traditional architecture of Anatolia in the 14th century will be highlighted.

Sungur Bey Mosque suffered from a fire in the 18th century. Consequently, the superstructure collapsed and the original plan was altered in the subsequent repair. Accordingly, the repairs carried out in different periods will be documented and different opinions on the original plan of the Mosque will be reviewed in this chapter. Moreover, articulation of the façades, materials used in the construction and architectural decoration of the Mosque will be considered.

4.1 Site

Sungur Bey Mosque is built on the slope of the Alaeddin Hill, outside the citadel of Niğde. (Fig. 3) Due to leveling, the east façade of the Mosque is below the road level and stairs lead the way to the Mosque.27 The west (Fig. 2) and north façades of the Mosque, on the other hand, are above the level of the road. The Mosque is currently enclosed by streets on the south, east and west and by an open marketplace on the north.

4.2 Repairs

According to some scholars, the first identified repair on the Mosque was carried out during the Karamanid Period, based on the inscription panel on the doorframe of the

______27 In the photographs taken in the 1930s, the east façade of the Mosque was at the level of the road.

27 east portal.28 (Fig. 5) This inscription panel, mentioned in detail in Section 3.1.1, was a decree concerning a tax exemption for the inhabitants of Niğde. In our opinion, it pointed to a common practice of locating decrees concerning taxes and it was placed on the portal of the Mosque with the intention that it would be seen by the public easily. Thus, it was not directly related with the building and probably, it did not indicate a repair carried out during the Karamanid Period.

Sungur Bey Mosque suffered from a fire in the 18th century and consequently, the superstructure and the two minarets of the Mosque collapsed.29 In the subsequent repair, the original plan was altered and the Mosque was covered by a flat earth roof, supported on timber columns. Towards 1848, the Mosque was repaired once more and one of the minarets on the east portal was re-built. During the Ottoman Period, a fountain was also built in the courtyard. (Özkarcı 2001, 52)

In the 20th century, repairs were carried out by Vakıflar General Directorate in 1964, 1966, 1969, 1971, 1977, 1982 and 1985, respectively. In these repairs, the timber beams of the ceiling and the roof tiles were renewed, and the cut-stone that had worn out was changed. In addition, the fountain built during the Ottoman Period was demolished and a simple fountain was built in the repairs carried out during the 1960s. (Özkarcı 2001, 52)

Hence, due to the fire in the 18th century and the subsequent repairs that were carried out in the last three centuries, Sungur Bey Mosque lost much of its original features; namely its superstructure, twin minarets and most of its delicate ornamentation, especially on the east portal. Nevertheless, even the present condition of the Mosque gives an idea of its grandeur seven centuries before.

4.3 Plan

Sungur Bey Mosque has a longitudinal plan on the north-south axis, with the external dimensions of 28.45 x 37.10 m. The Mosque has two portals on the east and north

______28 Akmaydalı (1985, 152) suggests that the inscription panel on the east portal documents a repair. Similarly, Özkarcı (2001, 52), also considers it probable. 29 According to Tanyeli (1993, 158), on the other hand, the superstructure probably collapsed due to an earthquake.

28 façades and the adjacent octagonal tomb is situated on the south corner of the east façade. Originally, the Mosque had twin minarets on the east façade. However, they collapsed in the fire in the 18th century and only the north minaret was re-built in the subsequent repairs.

The Mosque is currently covered by a flat timber roof, supported on twenty-four timber columns. (Fig. 9) Six rows of timber columns divide the Mosque into five naves perpendicular to the qibla wall.30 Arches that rise above the columns of the Mosque support the flat timber ceiling, which is in return covered by a pitched roof.

The current plan of the Mosque was adopted during the repairs carried out after the fire in the 18th century and it is totally different from the original plan of the Mosque. There are different opinions on the original plan of the Mosque and some of them are merely estimations because of lack of enough evidence. Below is a summary:

The Mosque originally consisted of three aisles running perpendicular to the qibla wall, with the central aisle being wider than the others.31 (Gabriel 1962, 32) According to Gabriel (1962, 33), the central aisle was covered by four domes (Fig. 10, 11), just like Gök Medrese or Burmalı Minare in Amasya. Gabriel maintained that the domes over the central aisle were either elliptical or half sphere in shape. In addition, he considered windows on the drum of the domes in his restitution of the Mosque. Moreover, Gabriel also suggested that the side aisles were covered by cross or star vaults.

Nevertheless, Yavuz (1983, 105) disregarded the possibility of star vaults, based on her observations on the traces of diagonal ribs and posited the use of cross vaults over the side aisles. Similarly, Tanyeli (1993, 176) repeated the proposition of Yavuz on the use of cross vaults over the side aisles. In addition, Tanyeli considered the

______30 According to Gabriel’s plan (1962, fig. 13), on the other hand, five rows of timber columns, each having four columns, divide the Mosque into five naves perpendicular to the qibla wall. Consequently, Gabriel erroneously recorded the Mosque with twenty timber columns. 31 This longitudinal plan type, where aisles run perpendicular to the qibla wall, is called “basilical plan” by some scholars. Öney (2000, 14), for instance maintains that this plan type was inspired from the Armenian and Byzantine basilicas in Anatolia and shaped in a new synthesis.

29 possibility that the central aisle of the Mosque was covered by ribbed cross vaults.32

Özkarcı (2001, 55) disregarded the possibility of covering the central aisle by a half spherical or elliptical dome. 33 Thus, Özkarcı also considered the use of cross vaults over the central and side aisles as a viable option. (Fig. 12)

Scholars such as Aslanapa (1971, 176), Sözen (1975, 43), Arık (1980, 117), Akmaydalı (1985, 151) and Öney (1989, 11) on the other hand, adopted the view of Gabriel and maintained that the central aisle of the Mosque was covered by domes.

4.4 Façade Articulation

Each of the four façades of the Mosque present variations, which will be described in detail below. The only common element is a band, which runs at the center of each façade. This band, consisting of mouldings with different profiles, surrounds the Mosque on the east, north and south façades and it continues as a plain band on the west façade. This band divides the façades into two sections and in the upper section, blind arches are observed.

4.4.1 East Façade

The east façade of the Mosque appears to be the main façade, with its elaborately decorated monumental portal – once crowned by twin minarets and its octagonal tomb adjoining the Mosque.34 (Fig. 13, 14)

The portal of the Mosque is situated to the north of the axis.35 The east portal, which is in the form of a pointed arched iwan, projects 4.20 m. from the façade. (Fig. 4) It has a height of 11.00 m. and a width of 15.75 m., including the side walls. The iwan, ______32 Nevertheless, Tanyeli (1993, 175) also considered the possibility that the building was not completed as it was planned and the “Gothic superstructure was never completely built.” 33 The central aisle of the Mosque was nearly rectangular. Accordingly, Özkarcı (2001, 55) drew attention to the impossibility of covering a rectangular space by a half spherical dome, without making a transition to a square. In addition, he also disregarded the possibility of covering the central aisle by an elliptical dome and he based his argument on the lack of such examples from the Anatolian Seljuk or Ilkhanid Periods. Özkarcı also mentioned that the elliptical domes observed in the Anatolian Seljuk and Ilkhanid Periods were due to repairs carried out in the subsequent periods 34 As Özkarcı (2001, 53) pointed out, the topography of the site dictated the construction of the monumental portal with twin minarets on the east façade of the Mosque. 35 The location of the columns and arches of the Mosque probably necessitated such a positioning of the portal.

30 on the other hand, has the dimensions of 4.00 x 4.15 m. and it is covered by a ribbed cross-vault, which is generally associated with Gothic architecture. In addition, there are two side-niches, with the dimensions of 0.85 x 1.07 x 2.50 m.

The east portal of the Mosque used to be crowned by twin minarets, prior to the fire in the 18th century. Nevertheless, only the north minaret was rebuilt in the subsequent repairs. The current minaret has an octagonal trunk with a single balcony and it is accessible from inside.

The moulded band, which divides the façade into two sections, is interrupted by the portal. In the lower section of the façade, two windows are situated on the sides of the portal symmetrically, however they are no longer functional. The window on the north was converted into a niche and the one on the south was altered to a door, to provide the passage to the tomb. (Özkarcı 2001, 56) Five windows are placed in the upper section of the façade36 and two of them provide light for the staircase of the minarets.

The octagonal tomb adjoins the Mosque on the south corner of the east façade. It is articulated by small, round blind arches, which repeat the scheme of the Mosque. In addition, it has a sixteen-sided pyramidal cap. It used to have access both from the interior and exterior of the Mosque, however they are no longer used.

4.4.2 North Façade

The north portal is situated 0.25 m. to the east of the axis and it only projects 0.13 m. from the façade. (Özkarcı 2001, 54) It does not have a soffit and it is accentuated mainly by moulded bands. (Fig. 15)

The moulded band, which divides the façade into two sections, surrounds the rectangular framework of the portal and the door located on the east corner of the façade. This door was once used as an entrance to the mahfil section. Nonetheless, the staircase leading to the door collapsed and subsequently this door was filled with

______36 These five windows also include the geometric arrangements reminiscent of rose windows on the tympanum of the portal, which will be studied in Section 5.2.2.1.

31 stone. Today, the only access to the mahfil section is from the interior of the Mosque.

There are three blind arches in the upper section of the façade. The one at the center is wider and higher than the others and it has a geometric arrangement reminiscent of a rose window.37 (Fig. 16) This window is just above the portal of the Mosque and it is the only source of light on the north façade.

4.4.3 West Façade

The moulded band, which surrounds the Mosque on all three sides, does not continue on this façade. Yet, a plain band divides the west façade into two sections. (Fig. 17, 18) There are four rectangular windows in the lower section of the façade and each of them has different recessed arches. In addition, these windows also differ from each other in the decoration of their tympana, as it will be considered in detail in Section 5.2.4.

In the upper section of the façade, four rectangular windows are placed in the center of the four pointed blind arches. Nonetheless, these windows do not have recessed arches and tympana like the windows in the lower section. In addition, there is a door on the north corner of the façade, however it is no longer functional.38

4.4.4 South Façade

The moulded band divides the south façade into two sections (Fig. 19), similar to the east and north façades. In the lower section, the three-sided projecting mass of the mihrab niche is observed in the center of the façade. (Fig. 20) In the upper section, three rectangular windows are situated in the center of the blind arches. The central blind arch is wider than the others, in accordance with the original plan of the Mosque.

______37 The geometric arrangement above the north portal of the Mosque is studied in detail in Section 5.2.2.2. 38 According to Özkarcı (2001, 53) an “ambulatory” (gezinti mahalli) was built on the west façade and the door placed on the corner provided the access from the mahfil section to this area.

32 4.4.5 Interior

Sungur Bey Mosque has the internal dimensions as 32.88 x 24.45 m. As mentioned in the plan of the Mosque, six rows of timber columns, each having four columns, divide the Mosque into five naves perpendicular to the qibla wall. Thus, twenty-four timber columns support the timber ceiling. (Fig. 21)

Just like the exterior of the Mosque, a moulded band surrounds the interior and divides the walls into two sections. In the lower section, six oval marble columns and eight cusped piers are attached to the walls. (Fig. 22) Six of these columns/piers are situated on the east and west walls, while the other four are placed on the north and south walls. In addition, four columns are situated at the corners.

The mihrab is situated in the center of the south elevation, on the axis of the door of the north portal. The current minber of the Mosque is located to the right of the mihrab. Nevertheless, the original minber of the Mosque is currently located in Dışarı Mosque in Niğde. (Fig. 7, 8)

On the north, the mahfil is situated as a second floor. (Fig. 23) It has three sections, covered by barrel vaults. The section in the center is wider than the others, in line with the original plan of the Mosque.39 (Fig. 24) A door is situated on the west corner of the mahfil section, however it is no longer used.40

On the west elevation, there are four windows in the lower section of the wall. The recessed arches of these windows repeat the ones on the exterior. (Fig. 25) Moreover, four rectangular windows are placed in the upper section.

The main doorway of the Mosque is situated on the east elevation. Besides, there are two other doors, which provide access to the minarets of the Mosque. Nevertheless, the door on the south is no longer used, as the south minaret was not rebuilt in the repairs that were carried out subsequent to the fire. The door on the north, on the other hand, leads to two separate staircases; one leading to minaret and the other to ______39 The section in the center has the dimensions as 2.85 x 8.25 m., and it is probably arranged as “bey mahfili”. The other sections, on the other hand, have the dimensions as 2.85 x 5.30 m. 40According to Özkarcı (2001, 57), this door used to provide access to the “ambulatory” mentioned above.

33 mahfil section. In addition, there are two windows in the lower section of the wall, which are no longer functional. The window on the north was converted into a niche and the one on the south was converted to a door to provide access to the tomb from the interior of the Mosque. The latter one converted to a door, has a recessed arch and tympanum similar to the windows on the west façade.41 (Fig. 26)

4.5 Construction Materials

A yellowish local stone called “trachyte” is used in the construction of the Mosque. (Özkarcı 2001, 52) In addition, marble is observed on the east portal, on the window frames and on the six oval columns inside the Mosque. According to Gabriel (1962, 35), these marble columns inside the Mosque were probably taken from a Byzantine building. (Fig. 22) Moreover, wood is used on the doors of the north and east portals, as well as on the original minber of the Mosque, which is in Dışarı Mosque today. (Fig. 7, 8)

The plan of the Mosque was altered in the subsequent repairs, as mentioned above. Consequently, the Mosque is currently covered by a flat timber roof, supported on timber columns and arches. (Fig. 21) These timber columns and arches are not exposed and they are covered by stucco.

4.6 Architectural Decoration

Sungur Bey Mosque is noteworthy for its delicate stonework, as well as its elegant woodcarving. Thus, the decoration of the east and north portals, mihrab, mahfil and minber will be considered in more detail in this section. All the same, the windows of the Mosque and the moulded band, which surrounds the Mosque both on the exterior and in the interior, will be considered in Section 5.2.

4.6.1 East Portal

The monumental east portal of the Mosque is in the form of a pointed arched iwan and it is enclosed in a rectangular frame. (Fig. 14) Originally, the portal was completely decorated with geometric, floral and figurative bands, however most of ______41 The recessed arch and tympanum will be considered in detail in Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4.

34 its decoration did not survive. These were most probably damaged in the fire in the 18th century and replaced by plain stone blocks in the subsequent repairs.

The rectangular framework of the portal consists of three mouldings and two bands, all decorated with geometric motifs. Nevertheless, hardly any ornamentation survives today. (Fig. 4) The remains of the marble inscription panel is placed on the inner band of the rectangular framework, however its surface has been completely mutilated.42

The minaret bases are situated on the side faces of the portal. They have beveled edges, forming three panels. Each of these panels is divided into two rectangular sections by a series of mouldings, decorated with geometric motifs. Unfortunately, most of the decoration on the side faces of the portal is damaged and replaced by plain stone blocks.

The iwan is covered by a ribbed cross vault, which is generally associated with Gothic architecture. (Fig. 27) The walls of the iwan are decorated with floral and geometric motifs, as well as stylized animal figures. The decoration of the walls is in a fairly good condition. Nonetheless, the two cylindrical corner columns, which were decorated with geometric motifs, were renewed in the repairs. (Özkarcı 2001, 58)

The lintel of the doorway is composed of seven marble panels. (Fig. 27) These marble panels are different from each other in width, as well as ornamentation. They are decorated with geometric interlaces and floral motifs. A marble inscription panel in nesih script is located above the lintel. A band, decorated with herringbone patterns and half hexagons, fills the space between the inscription panel and the tympanum of the portal. The tympanum of the portal has a pointed arch and it has three geometric arrangements, which are simplified versions of rose windows. These geometric arrangements will be considered in detail in Section 5.2.2.1.

The doorframes are decorated with floral motifs, consisting of palmettes and rumis. Their side faces, on the other hand, have geometric interlaces, with rosette infills. ______42 This marble panel is regarded as the inscription panel related to the construction of the Mosque. (Gabriel 1962, 34)

35 The side walls of the iwan consist of broad panels, framed by a moulded band at the springing of the cross-vault.43 The panels between the corner columns of the iwan and the side niches are decorated with geometric motifs. (Fig. 28) These panels are framed by two bands; one decorated with stylized animal figures and the other with palmettes and rumis. The heads of elephant, bird, horse, panther, dragon, rat, bull, rabbit, dog, lion, monkey, sheep (or ram or goat), duck and fish figures are associated with a vine scroll, filling in the openings.44 (Fig. 29-30) Özkarcı (2001, 59) and Öney (1992, 48) relate these animal figures to the Turkish Calendar with 12 Animals. Fish figures, which are not represented in the calendar, are illustrated in full bodies, while the other figures are only represented with their heads.

The side niches have rectangular frames decorated with geometric motifs. (Fig. 31) Their recessed niches have three faces and their soffits are different from each other. The one on the north has a soffit consisting of horizontal mouldings, while the one on the south has a muqarnas hood. (Özkarcı 2001, 59) The niches are divided into panels and decorated with geometric and floral motifs.

The wooden door of the east portal is shorter than the entrance opening and this gap is covered by nailing segments of wood to the panel at the bottom of the door.45 (Fig. 32) The two wings of the door have identical decoration and each wing is divided into three panels. The panel on top is decorated with an inscription in nesih script, which identifies the artist of the door as Hacı Muhammed. (Özkarcı 2001, 65) The panel in the center is decorated with a geometric motif developing from a fourteen-sided star. The panel on the bottom, on the other hand, has a simple geometric decoration.46

______43 The side faces of the cross-vault are decorated with herringbone patterns, half hexagons and rumi motifs, however some of this decoration is damaged. 44 There are 37 figures on the north panel and 42 figures on the south panel, however 9 of the figures on the south panel are damaged. (Özkarcı 2001, 59) 45 This door is different from the door of the north portal and from the original minber of the Mosque in terms of its material, technique and decoration. According to Özkarcı (2001, 65), it was placed in Sungur Bey Mosque during the repairs. 46 Different carving techniques, such as “hakiki kündekari” and “düz ve yuvarlak satıhlı oyma” are used in the decoration of the door. For more information see (Özkarcı 2001, 65)

36 4.6.2 North Portal

The decoration of the north portal is in a better condition, compared to the east portal. Only a few damaged pieces on the lower section of the portal are replaced by plain stone blocks. (Fig. 33) Floral and geometric motifs are observed similar to the decoration of the east portal, however animal figures is only limited to a double- headed eagle.

The north portal projects 0.13 m. from the façade of the Mosque and the framework of the portal is accentuated by moulded bands. (Fig. 33) The moulded band, which surrounds the Mosque on all three sides, thereby dividing the façades into two sections, continues above the framework of the portal. There is a geometric arrangement similar to a rose window above this band and it will be discussed in detail in Section 5.2.2.2.

The rectangular framework of the portal is surrounded by four mouldings of various widths, all decorated with floral motifs. Two broad bands that follow, on the other hand, are ornamented with geometric motifs.47 (Fig. 34) Moreover, the interior band has two half spheres (kabara) in the upper section.

The marble doorframe is surrounded by a number of mouldings with geometric and floral motifs. The doorframe is decorated with hexagon motifs which have six-sided star and rosette infills.

Moreover, there is a double-headed eagle on the keystone in low relief. (Fig. 35) The double-headed eagle is set in a square frame and the corners of the square are filled with palmette motifs. As this double-headed eagle was different from the ones observed during the Anatolian Seljuk Period, Gabriel (1962, 37) suggested that it might be a “falcon”. “Sungur” stands for falcon and accordingly this double-headed

______47 The exterior band has eight-sided stars with rosette infills. The interior band, on the other hand, has a combination of floral and geometric motifs. Palmette and rumi motifs are arranged in the corners of twelve-sided stars and rosettes are placed in their center. A moulding is placed between these two bands and it is decorated with geometric motifs. (Özkarcı 2001, 60)

37 eagle might be the armorial bearing of Sungur Ağa, the donor of the Mosque.48 (Gabriel 1962, 37)

The wooden door of the north portal has two wings, which are decorated in the same manner. (Fig. 36, 37) Each wing is divided into three rectangular panels. The panel on top is decorated with an inscription in sülüs script. The panel in the center, on the other hand, displays a delicate geometric ornamentation, with its eight sided stars in the center. Five sided stars, hexagons and half octagons extend from these eight- sided stars and floral motifs are placed inside them. Unfortunately, the panel at the bottom was destroyed and plain wooden pieces were nailed in the repairs.49

4.6.3 Mihrab

The stone mihrab of the Mosque is decorated with floral and geometric motifs in low and high relief. In addition, calligraphy is also observed. The moulded band surrounding the interior of the Mosque continues above the frame of the mihrab, subsequently outlining its finial. Nevertheless, this moulded band is twice its usual width.

The mihrab of the Mosque is framed by eight bands of different widths and they are slightly layered towards the mihrab niche. (Fig. 38, 39) Three bands on the exterior are decorated with simple geometric interlaces which are different from each other. The succeeding wide band has a geometric composition, developed from ten-sided stars. In addition, four half-spheres are placed on the upper section of this band. The next band has a beveled edge, decorated with five-sided stars and hexagons. The succeeding wide band displays a combination of geometric and floral motifs and it has three half spheres in the upper section. The concave band that follows is a verse

______48 This double-headed eagle is also observed on the original carpet of the Mosque, which is displayed in the Museum of Niğde today. For further information on the double-headed eagle of the north portal, see (Özkarcı 2001, 60; Öney 1972, 152). 49 A combination of different carving techniques such as “hakiki kündekari”, “yuvarlak ve düz satıhlı oyma”, “oluklu oyma”, “çift katlı oyma” and “kakma” are used in the decoration of the wooden door. For further information on the decoration of the door and on the carving techniques used, see (Özkarcı 2001, 64; Mülayim 1982, 54-61; Mülayim 1990, 50)

38 from the Qur’an in nesih script. The last band is completely decorated with floral motifs, consisting of palmettes and rumis.50

The soffit of the mihrab consists of five rows, separated by horizontal bands. Geometric and floral motifs, as well as muqarnas rows decorate the soffit of the mihrab and two half spheres adorn the spandrels.

The mihrab niche has five panels separated from each other by mouldings decorated with geometric motifs. The panel in the center is decorated with a star, while the others have floral patterns. The cylindrical corner columns of the mihrab niche are ornamented with geometric interlaces and their capitals are decorated with “large and swollen leaves”. (Özkarcı 2001, 62)

4.6.4 Mahfil

The mahfil section on the north elevation has three sections. The original stone balustrade of the east section survives and the others are replaced by iron balustrades. The stone balustrade is decorated with geometric interlaces developing from ten-sided stars, which are executed in openwork carving (ajur) technique. (Fig. 40) There is a projecting, three-sided section in the center of this stone balustrade and it is ornamented with an ewer motif.

4.6.5 Minber

As mentioned earlier, the original minber of the Mosque is in Dışarı Mosque in Niğde. (Fig. 7, 8) This minber is noteworthy for its delicate woodcarving and it maintains most of its original decoration, despite its rebuilt spire and some mother- of-pearl pieces that have fallen off. (Özkarcı 2001, 66)

The minber of the Mosque has seven stairs and its balustrade is decorated with geometric interlaces. A verse from the Qur’an is placed above the arch of the door on its front face.

______50 For more information see; (Bakırer 1976, 213-215; Özkarcı 2001, 61)

39 A triangular and three rectangular panels are placed on the side faces of the minber. (Fig. 7, 8) The triangular panel is ornamented with geometric motifs developing from half eight-sided stars. Five sided stars, quadrangles, hexagons, octagons and geometric motifs made with the intersecting of three sided stars, extend from these eight sided stars. Hexagons, octagons and eight sided stars are ornamented with geometric motifs, which are made of mother-of-pearl and wooden pieces. Moreover, floral motifs are placed inside the other geometric shapes.

The rectangular panels on top and at the bottom have inscription panels in sülüs script. The rectangular panel in the center has a geometric decoration repeating the one in the triangular panel.

The artist of the minber is identified as Hoca Ebubekir, the clerk of Sungur Ağa, according to the inscription panel on the left side of the minber. The minber is similar to the wooden door of the north portal in terms of its material, technique and decoration.51 (Özkarcı 2001, 67) On the basis of this similarity, Özkarcı (2001, 51) suggested that both the minber and the door of the north portal were built by the same artist.

______51 A combination of different carving techniques such as “hakiki kündekari”, “kafes, yuvarlak ve düz satıhlı oyma”, “oluklu oyma” and “kakma” are used in the decoration of the wooden door. For further information, see (Özkarcı 2001, 66).

40

CHAPTER 5

TRADITIONAL AND FOREIGN ELEMENTS OF THE MOSQUE

The political unity and stability established during the Anatolian Seljuk Period enabled a homogenous architectural style, particularly in the first half of the 13th century. Nonetheless, with the collapse of the Anatolian Seljuks and the emergence of principalities in the beginning of the 14th century, architectural developments diverted into a number of trends. Hence, new experiments, which attempted to reconcile local traditions with the prevailing trends in the Anatolian Seljuk architecture, appeared during the Principalities Period.52 In central Anatolia, on the other hand, the Anatolian Seljuk tradition was mainly sustained. (Sözen 1987, 44; Crane 2002, 30)

Sungur Bey Mosque maintained the Anatolian Seljuk tradition and in many respects, it was in line with its contemporaries in the Principalities Period. Nevertheless, some of the architectural forms observed on the Mosque seem to diverge from the traditional architecture of Anatolia and display some foreign interactions.

Thus, this chapter will present a discussion of the traditional elements, which show a continuation on the Mosque together with new elements, which reflect possible foreign impact. Accordingly, comparative studies will be made with contemporary examples from Anatolia, Cyprus, Europe, Eastern Crusader States and Armenia, in an attempt to identify similarities or differences with the Sungur Bey Mosque.

______52 By the 14th century, however, local trends were polarized into 4 regions; the west - an area where new experiments were more pronounced; Central Anatolia - an area predominantly under Karamanid rule where Seljuk trends were observed; the east - where political links with Azerbaijan were very strong; and southeastern Anatolia - where artistic traditions of Mesopotamia and Syria were influential. (Sözen 1987, 44; Öney 2000, 12)

41 5.1 Traditional Elements, which Show a Continuation on the Mosque

The plan, portal composition, construction materials and architectural decoration of the Mosque mainly followed the architectural style of the Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Periods. Some examples will be considered below.

5.1.1 Plan and Mass

The longitudinal plan of the Mosque was adopted in several Anatolian Seljuk buildings, such as Divriği Castle Mosque (1180-81), Kayseri Bünyan Great Mosque, Amasya Burmalı Minare Mosque (1237-47), Amasya Gök Medrese Mosque (1266- 67, 1275) and Tunceli Mazgirt Elti Hatun Mosque (1252). In addition, Alaeddin Mosque in Niğde (1223), which had three aisles running perpendicular to the qibla wall, was obviously the nearest inspiring example.53 (Tuncer 1986, 35-36; Özkarcı 2001, 194)

This plan type was also employed in several mosques in the Principalities Period, such as Beyşehir Eşrefoğlu Mosque (1299), Birgi Great Mosque (1312), Kastamonu Candaroğlu Mahmut Bey Mosque (1366), Milas Great Mosque (1378) and Bergama Great Mosque (1398). (Arık 1980, 116; Öney 1989, 11-12; Koca 2002, 731)

Moreover, the mosque-tomb combination observed in a number of Anatolian Seljuk examples, such as in Amasya Burmalı Minare Mosque and Amasya Gök Medrese Mosque was also repeated in Sungur Bey Mosque. (Özkarcı 2001, 196) In the Principalities Period, this scheme was used in the Beyşehir Eşrefoğlu Mosque (1297) and Birgi Great Mosque (1312) as well. (Ünal 1993, 43)

As mentioned before, the original plan of the Mosque was altered in the repairs that were carried out subsequent to the collapse of the superstructure in the 18th century. Thus, it was not possible to make comparisons on the superstructure of the Mosque, due to lack of evidence and controversial opinions on its original form.

______53 The influence of Alaeddin Mosque was also apparent in the location of the mahfil on the north elevation.

42 5.1.2 Portal Composition

Portals with twin minarets were frequently observed in the Anatolian Seljuk medreses, such as Sivas Gök Medrese (1271-72), Sivas Çifte Minareli Medrese and Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese (end of 13th century)54 (Kuran 1980, 92). However, they were not very common in mosques and Sungur Bey Mosque was the second mosque in Anatolia having a portal with twin minarets after the Sahip Ata Mosque in Konya (1258). (Arık 1980, 117) In the Principalities Period, Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi (1310) and Selçuk İsa Bey Mosque (1374-75) also had twin minarets, however only one of their minarets survive. (Büktel 2000, 36; Sönmez 1989, 348)

Sungur Bey Mosque had two portals on its east and north façades, repeating the scheme of the Alaeedin Mosque in Niğde. (Fig. 41) Its monumental east portal had all the elements of a traditional Anatolian Seljuk portal with its rectangular framework shaped by moulded bands, corner columns and side niches. Moreover, its east portal, in the form of a pointed arched iwan, was also observed in a number of Anatolian Seljuk examples such as Amasya Gök Medrese Mosque and Makıt Hanı at Harput Divriği (beginning of 13th century). (Ünal 1982, 26) Iwan type portals were also widely used in the early Ottoman Architecture, as observed in Merzifon Çelebi Mehmed Medresesi (1414-17), Bursa Muradiye Medresesi (1426), Bursa Cem Sultan Tomb (1479) and Bursa Koza Han (1489-91). (Çakmak 2001, 17) Nevertheless, the side faces of the east portal of the Mosque were wider than its rectangular framework and they were attached to the façade at an obtuse angle. This feature was not observed in other portals with iwans. (Ünal 1982, 26)

Furthermore, the east portal of the Mosque was a new interpretation in the Anatolian Seljuk portals with its unusual proportions.55 (Tuncer 1986, 72-73). Nonetheless, the proportions of the Anatolian Seljuk portals were distorted during the Principalities Period, as exemplified in Ermenek Tol Medresesi (1339-40), Balat İlyas Bey

______54 Twin minarets above the portal was not a new concept in Anatolia. The twin minarets of the building related to Mümine Hatun Tomb in Azerbaijan (dating from 1186), was one of the earliest examples. (Tuncer 1986, 85) In addition, according to Altun (1978, 291), twin minarets observed in Artuqid mosques were probably the first examples in Anatolia. 55 The east portal of the Mosque had a width of 15.75 m –including the side walls – while the width of the east façade was 37.40 m

43 Mosque (1404) and Niğde Ak Medrese (1409). (Fig. 42) (Çakmak 2001, 6; Arık 1980, 123) Therefore, Sungur Bey Mosque was in line with its contemporaries.

Its north portal, on the other hand, projected only 0.13 m. from the façade of the Mosque; thus the framework of the portal was accentuated mainly by moulded bands. However, the portals of Divriği Castle Mosque, Kızıltepe (Dunaysır) Great Mosque (1204) and Firuz Bey Mosque at Milas were similar in concept. (Ünal 1982, 18) In addition, the portals of some early Ottoman mosques, such as Karacabey İmaret Mosque (1456) and Edirne Muradiye Mosque (1426) projected only 0.12 m. and 0.18 m. from the façade, respectively. (Çakmak 2001, 14)

5.1.3 Materials of Construction

Stone was the main construction material in Anatolia and it was mainly supplied from the quarries in the neighborhood to reduce the transportation costs. (Bakırer 1995, 166) Likewise, a yellowish local stone, which was quarried in the neighborhood, was used in the construction of Sungur Bey Mosque. This local stone, called “trachyte”, was also used in other buildings in Niğde, such as Alaeddin Mosque and Hüdavend Hatun Tomb.

Furthermore, reused material was frequently observed during the Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Periods. Reused columns of Atabey Ertokuş Medresesi, Konya Alaaddin Mosque (1155-1220), Sivas Gök Medrese (1271) and Sivas Buruciye Medresesi (1271) from the Anatolian Seljuk Period; Manisa Great Mosque (1366), Selçuk İsa Bey Mosque (1374) and Milas Great Mosque (1378) from the Principalities Period were among these examples. (Bakırer 1995, 170; Arık 1980, 119; Aslanapa 1993, 178; Koca 2002, 731) Thus, the reused marble columns of the Mosque were also in line with this common practice.

5.1.4 Architectural Decoration

Portals were the most prominent parts in a façade composition, and the ornamentation of an Anatolian Seljuk building was limited to its portal on its exterior, most of the time.

44 Similarly, the portals of Sungur Bey Mosque were the most delicately ornamented components on its east and north façades. However, the moulded band, which surrounded the Mosque, the blind arches on the upper section of the façades56 and the tympana of the windows on its west façade also contributed to the decoration of its otherwise plain west and south façades.

Floral and geometric motifs, as well as stylized animal figures were observed on the portals of the Mosque, recalling many examples from the Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Periods. The portals of Niğde Alaeddin Mosque were decorated with moulded bands consisting of geometric motifs. (Fig. 41) In Sungur Bey Mosque, the same practice was observed on the main façade of its monumental east portal and its side faces. However, its north portal and the iwan of its east portal presented a combination of floral, geometric and figural ornamentation, which was more in line with its contemporaries.

During the second half of the 13th century, floral motifs, which were dominant in architectural decoration, became more plastic with large palmettes, lotuses and arabesques. In the Principalities Period, Anatolian Seljuk tradition was maintained in central and eastern Anatolia. Geometric interlaces and less ornate, but more realistic floral patterns became prominent. (Öney 1980, 170, 171) The portals of Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese (Hatuniye - from the end of the 13th century) (Fig. 43) and Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi (1310), for instance, had decorative bands consisting of floral and geometric motifs, however floral themes were dominant. In addition, high relief figures were arranged in panels on the side faces of these portals. The four panels in Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese were decorated with sacred tree, dragon, double-headed eagle and big palmette motifs. (Fig. 44) The side faces of the portal in Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi, on the other hand, were arranged in two panels. The upper panel had decorative bands consisting of floral and geometric motifs. The lower one encompassed a sacred tree composition, flanked by lions on both sides and a double-headed eagle motif on top. (Ünal 1989, 15, 16, 47, 48; Ünal 1993, 29, 40) ______56 Blind arcades, usually with slim engaged pillars, were a general feature of the Armenian churches. (Sinclair 1987, I/ 28) They appeared in Armenian Architecture at an extremely early date and the Church at Sanain, built in 961 was among the earliest examples. Strzygowski found its origin in northern Iran. (Buxton 1934, 86)

45 The portal of another Ilkhanid building, Amasya Bimarhane (1308), was again decorated with a combination of floral and geometric patterns. (Fig. 45, 46) It had surface decoration observed in Anatolian Seljuks, as well as plastic palmette and rumi motifs.57 (Aslanapa 1993, 164; Tuncer 1986, 87)

The portals of Sungur Bey Mosque were reminiscent of these above mentioned examples in the use of decorative bands consisting of geometric and floral motifs. In addition, the side faces of the iwan on its east portal (Fig. 28) were arranged in panels, similar to the examples in Erzurum. Although Sungur Bey Mosque differed from the former in the use of low relief figures, they were not as “embroidery-like” as in the first half of the 13th century (Öney 1980, 170) and a certain light-shadow effect was perceived.

Moreover, the rich figural ornamentation of the Mosque is reminiscent of some examples in Anatolia. Stylized animal figures, such as elephant, bird, horse, panther, dragon, rat, bull, rabbit, dog, lion, monkey, sheep (or ram/goat), duck and fish figures, were associated with a vine scroll on the east portal of the Mosque. (Fig. 29) A similar practice was observed on the portals of Sivas Gök Medrese and Bünyan Great Mosque (1256), as well. (Aslanapa 1993, 171; Öney 1992, 54) In Sivas Gök Medrese, the animal figures were attached to a vine scroll, however they were clustered. (Fig. 47) Thus, they were not arranged as a decorative band as in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque. In Bünyan Great Mosque, on the other hand, animal figures were only limited to lions.

Özkarcı (2001, 59) and Öney (1992, 48) related the various stylized animals on the east portal of the Mosque, to the Turkish Calendar with Twelve Animals. Fish figures, which were not represented in the calendar, were illustrated in full bodies, while the other calendar animals were only represented with their heads.58 A similar composition consisting of fish figures was also observed on the portal of a ______57 In addition, a human figure sitting cross-legged, was carved on its keystone. 58 The animals represented in the Turkish-Chinese Animal Calendar are as follows: 1. rat; 2. cattle, ox, bull or cow: 3. panther, lion or fox; 4. rabbit; 5. dragon, lizard, giraffe or bird; 6. snake; 7. horse; 8. sheep, kid or ram; 9. monkey or human; 10. hen or cock; 11. dog; 12. pig or goat. (Öney 1992, 54) The implied meanings and symbolism of these figures are beyond the scope of this thesis. For further information, see; (Öney 1968, 148; Öney 1969, 182; Öney 1972, 152; Öney 1992, 54; Otto-Dorn 1963, 148; Peker, 1998).

46 Karamanid building, Oba Medresesi (from the second half of the 14th century). In this particular example, the vine scroll of Sungur Bey Mosque was replaced by a pair of dragons and fish figures were set in the rectangular spaces formed by the intersection of their bodies. (Sözen 1965, 150)

Hüdavend Hatun Tomb (1312) in Niğde, also had a rich figural ornamentation consisting of siren, lion (or panther/tiger) and double-headed eagle figures, some executed in high relief. (Fig. 48) Moreover, human figures were hidden in the floral arabesque decoration. The double-headed eagle on its west façade (Fig. 49) was similar to the one on the north portal of Sungur Bey Mosque, with its pointed ears and twisted beak.59 (Öney 1967, 143, 148) Furthermore, the double-headed eagle was a widespread motif in the Anatolian Seljuk art. It was also observed on Sivas Gök Medrese, Divriği Great Mosque, the city walls of Diyarbakır (1208-9), Urfa Harran Gate, Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese (Fig. 44) and Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi. (Öney 1978, 42; Ünal 1989, 47; Ünal 1993, 40)

The Armenian Church of Aght’amar (915-921) on the Lake of Van also displayed some similarities with Sungur Bey Mosque in its rich figural decoration. (Fig. 50) Lion, bull, bear, bird, fish, rabbit, goat, eagle, serpent, griffon, panther and peacock figures were executed in high relief.60 (Der Nersessian 1965, 11; İpşiroğlu 2003, 27- 29) Moreover, the vine scroll animated with various scenes and figures, also had some similarities with the vine scroll of Sungur Bey Mosque. (Der Nersessisan 1965, 11) Nevertheless, the figural decoration extended to all parts of the Church, while it was mainly limited to the east portal of Sungur Bey Mosque. Besides, the high relief figures of the Church did not have any parallels in Sungur Bey Mosque.

The decoration of the mihrab of the Mosque was also in accordance with the Anatolian Seljuk tradition. (Fig. 39) Majority of the mihrabs were made of cut-stone in the Anatolian Seljuk Period. Besides, they were ornamented in the same manner as the portals, with similar motifs and floral compositions. Moreover, the half-dome of the mihrab niche was usually crowned by stalactites. (Bakırer 1976, 30-31; Öney ______59 Nevertheless, the palmette figure above the double-headed eagle on Sungur Bey Mosque, was replaced by a human mask on the Hüdavend Hatun Tomb. (Öney 1967, 148) 60 In addition, the decoration of the Church also included stylized floral patterns, scenes from the Old and New Testament and scenes from daily life. (Der Nersessian 1965, 11)

47 1980, 171) Hence, Sungur Bey’s stone mihrab and its decoration consisting of floral and geometric motifs, stalactites and inscriptions repeated this practice.

5.2 New Elements, which Show the Influence of Foreign Impacts

The ribbed cross vault of the east portal, the geometric arrangements reminiscent of rose windows on the east and north façades, the recessed arches and tympana of the windows on the west façade and inside, some clustered piers inside the Mosque and the moulded band over them seemed to diverge from the traditional architecture of Anatolia. Thus, these elements will be considered in detail below.

5.2.1 Ribbed Cross Vault of the East Portal

The pointed arched iwan of the east portal was covered by a ribbed cross vault, which was usually associated with Gothic Architecture. (Fig. 51) In addition, Gabriel (1962, 35) considered the profile of this cross vault (Fig. 52) similar to a Gothic profile of the 16th century.61

5.2.1.1 Origins and Contemporary Examples

Ribs were occasionally used under vaulting by ancient Roman architects. Moreover, ribbed vaults were a stylistic feature of the architecture in Sassanid Mesopotamia and Islamic Iran. (Grodecki 1986, 23) Some of the brick vaults of Masjid-i Jami of Isfahan dating from the end of the 11th century, for instance, had ribs and an independent supporting framework in the Gothic manner.62 (Pope 1965, 106) Furthermore, complex patterns of ribbing decorated the domed mihrabs and tower halls in Moorish and North African Mosques during the 11th century. (Grodecki 1986, 23) The Great Mosque of Cordoba had eight intersecting ribs that carried the dome before the mihrab. (Fig. 55) Similarly, ribs were also observed on the dome of the Great Mosque of Qayrawan in Tunisia. (Brend 1991, 51, 53)

______61 A similar profile (Fig. 53) was also observed in one of the sketches of Villard de Honnecourt. (1959, Plate 44) In addition, the profiles of some vaulting arches in Cyprus were similar, such as those at New Mosque in Nicosia, the Cathedral Church of St. George of the Greeks in Famagusta. (Fig. 54a, 54b) (Enlart 1987, 151 fig. 91; 254 fig. 198) 62 According to Pope (1965, 106), the ribs observed on the Masjid-i Jami of Isfahan indicated the possibility of a contributive relation with the west.

48 In the 12th century, many buildings in France and Spain followed the Muslim examples, however they remained Romanesque. The buildings in Armenia and Georgia were more characteristic of the first real experiments with ribbing. From the 10th to the 13th centuries, ribbed domes and diagonal arches on a square field were observed at the Armenian city Ani. (Grodecki 1986, 23) Church of the Apostles at Ani, for instance, had intersecting cross-arches similar to rib-vaults. (Fig. 56) (Khatchatrian 1972, Fig. 57) As Grodecki (1986, 23) pointed out, there were economic and political contacts between Armenia and Western Europe. Thus, a certain group of ribbed vaults in Europe - such as those at San Nazaro Sesia, Lodi Vecchio in Lombardy and at Saint-Aubin at Angers in France - could be possibly traced back to the Eastern models. 63 (Grodecki 1986, 23)

The first examples of cross-ribbed vaulting appeared almost simultaneously in England and Normandy. While Durham (choir side aisle 1093-1100; north arm of the transept before 1104; choir before 1110) (Fig. 57), Winchester (after 1107), Petersborough (1118) and Gloucester (1100-1120, nave after 1122) were the first examples in England, the choir and transept of Lessay (1100), Duclair and Saint- Paul at Rouen were the earliest ones in Normandy. By the mid 12th century, the cross-ribbed vault spread, to a large extent, all over Europe. (Grodecki 1986, 23, 44)

The Gothic ribbed vaulting also spread to the Eastern Crusader States. In the Crusader Castle of Krak des Chevaliers, for instance, the Banqueting Hall (Gallery of the Knights’ Hall, which probably dated from the 1230s) and loggia were covered with ribbed vaulting. (Fig. 58) (Boase 1967, 56) Similarly, the hall of another Crusader Castle, Chastel Blanc (Safita, late 12th-early 13th century), probably had Gothic vaulting, as suggested by the springing of its arches. Moreover, the Chapel at Tortosa was covered by Gothic ribbed vaulting, as well. (Kennedy 1994, 136)

Ribbed vaulting was also widely used in the Gothic monuments in Cyprus. The Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Famagusta (Lala Mustafa Paşa Mosque), the Cathedral of St. Sophia (Selimiye Mosque) (Fig. 59) and other churches in Nicosia, such as St. ______63 Krautheimer (1986, 328) also drew attention to the use of intersecting cross-arches, similar to Lombard rib-vaults, to cover church porches in Armenia starting from the 11th century. However, Krautheimer (1986, 330) stated that claims such as Gothic builders acquiring the rib-vault from Armenia were rarely accepted.

49 Nicholas (Bedesten), Our Lady of Tyre, St. Mary of the Augustinians (Ömeriye Mosque) and St. Catherine (Haydar Paşa Mosque) were all covered by ribbed vaults. In addition, the chapterhouse at the Abbey of Bellapais in the Kyrenia district, had four rib-vaulted bays, however the vaults are now in ruins. (Enlart 1987, 36, 37, 149, 229)

In the Anatolian Seljuk architecture, the cross vault and its variations were widely used. Mazgirt Elti Hatun Mosque, for instance, was entirely covered by cross vaults. Furthermore, examples such as Sinop Alaaddin Mosque, Great Mosques of Urfa, Niksar and Aksaray were covered by cross vaults, excluding some special units. Cross vaults were used on the axis of the mihrab in a number of examples, such as in the Erzurum Castle Mosque, Erzurum Great Mosque, Silvan Great Mosque and Amasya Gök Medrese Mosque. Besides, they were used for covering iwans and entrances, as in Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese, Diyarbakır Zinciriye Medresesi, Sivas Keykavus Hospital, Konya Sahip Ata Hanikahı and Erkilet İlyas Bey Köşkü. Alaaddin Mosque in Niğde had a cross vault covering the entrance of the mahfil section. (Yavuz 1983, 30-31) All the same, these examples did not have ribs as in case of Sungur Bey Mosque. Nevertheless, ribs were sometimes used in Anatolia, as exemplified by the ribs on the dome of the Divriği Great Mosque. (Kuran 1980, 85)

5.2.2 Geometric Arrangements Reminiscent of Rose Windows

The geometric arrangements on the tympanum of the east portal and the one above the north portal resembled the Gothic rose windows. These geometric arrangements will be described in detail below.

5.2.2.1 Geometric Arrangements on the Tympanum of the East Portal

The tympanum of the east portal was in a fairly deteriorated condition. (Fig. 27) Nonetheless, a photogrammetric documentation was made by Şinasi Kılıç from the METU, Department of Architecture Photogrammetry Center, in 1989 and a restitution was made by Bakırer (2000, 368) based on this study.64 (Fig. 60)

______64 The photogrammetric study revealed that the inner side of the circle in the tympanum was completely broken. (Bakırer 2000, 79)

50 According to this restitution, a big circle in the center of the tympanum was flanked by smaller circles on both sides. The large circle was decorated with a rosette developed from an eight-sided star. The smaller circles, on the other hand, were decorated with six-sided stars. (Bakırer 2000, 79) All the geometric motifs were executed in openwork carving technique, by hollowing out the background.

5.2.2.2 Geometric Arrangement Above the North Portal

The geometric arrangement above the north portal of the Mosque was basically a round window set in a rectangular frame and it consisted of two concentric circles. (Fig. 61) The small circle in the center of the design was decorated with a six-sided star. The large circle, on the other hand, was divided into eight panels. These panels were decorated with trefoils, quatrefoils, rosettes and six-sided stars, however some of these motifs have been mutilated. Moreover, a trefoil and a rosette were set between the large circle and the rectangular frame in the upper section of the window.65 All the geometric motifs were executed in openwork carving technique, similar to the ones on the tympanum of the east portal.

5.2.2.3 Origins and Contemporary Examples

The Gothic rose window was a circular window with foils or patterned tracery, arranged like the spokes of a wheel. (Fleming et. al. 1975, 243) It was a development of the Romanesque wheel window, which was the symbol of the sun.66 (Domke 1959, XVI) The first partitioned, decorated rose windows appeared more or less simultaneously in Italy and in France. The wheel on the north façade of Saint- Etienne, Beauvais was considered to be the immediate predecessor of the first rose window. (Fig. 62) (Cowen 1992, 34) Besides, the rose windows of San Zeno at Verona and the Cathedrals of Trani and Troia were among the earliest examples in Italy. (Grodecki 1986, 34, 49)

______65 The patterns in the lower section, on the other hand, could not be identified because of their deteriorated condition. 66 The wheel windows of the Romanesque, in turn, evolved from simple round holes that often furnished the west façades of the churches. (Cowen 1992, 33)

51 In Romanesque and Gothic periods, tympana were integrated with the portals on the front façades of the cathedrals. The tympana were framed by a series of mouldings and they were ornamented by figures in relief. The rose window was placed above the wide-arched portal with its sculptured tympanum and colorful stained glass windows were placed behind these rose windows. (Domke 1959, VII; Bakırer 2000, 81) Thus, as Bakırer (2000, 81) has pointed out, the tympanum-rose window combination set up on the east portal of Sungur Bey Mosque, repeated the Gothic cathedrals of the age.67

All the same, the geometric arrangements on the east portal of Sungur Bey Mosque were simplified versions of rose windows that were observed on the Gothic cathedrals. Even the simple, first rose windows were partitioned, just like the spokes of a wheel. The rose window on the west front of St. Denis (1130-40 and 1140-44), for instance, was divided into twelve panels around a central hub. (Fig. 63) (Cowen 1992, 49) The rose windows at the west fronts of Notre Dame Paris (Fig. 64a) and Reims Cathedrals (begun after 1241), on the other hand, consisted of two concentric zones. In the inner zone, twelve spokes were arranged around a central hub, and the outer zone was divided into twenty-four panels. (Frankl 1962, 60, 62) The large rose window of Portail des Libraires at Rouen Cathedral (begun 1281) had two concentric zones with sixteen panels in the inner zone and thirty-two panels in the outer zone. (Frankl 1962, 91) The rose window at the west front of Chartres (1216), had a central hub flanked by twelve semicircular openings, which in turn were surrounded by twelve rosettes set in circles. (Fig. 64b) Moreover, the rose window at the north transept of Laon had a circle in the center, which was flanked by eight rosettes set in circles. (Fig. 64c) (Cowen 1992, 35, 52, 53)

Hence, the three geometric arrangements on the east portal of Sungur Bey Mosque were not as sophisticated and intricate as the western examples. They were not divided into panels and they were just decorated with a rosette and six-sided stars. Thus, they were more like the “geometrical tracery” observed in the upper part of ______67 Similar interactions between the east and the west were also observed during the Romanesque Period. A Romanesque church built on an earlier Islamic building at Balaguer (Lerida) in France (11th century) had a simple rose window on its west front, which was decorated with a rosette. (Bakırer 2000, 81) A similar rosette was observed on the lobed arch between the squinches at the Great Mosque of Qairawan. (Watson 1989, ii:377)

52 the windows in western cathedrals. (Fleming et. al. 1975, 287, 288) Such a tracery, for instance, was observed on the windows in the choir of Amiens Cathedral, as it will be described in detail in Section 5.2.4.1 below.

The geometric arrangement above the north portal of Sungur Bey Mosque, on the other hand, was more associated with the western examples. It was set in a rectangular frame repeating the early Gothic tendency to place rose windows in squares. (Cowen 1992, 39) The large rose window at the south transept of Notre- Dame Paris (begun in 1163, west front not begun until 1200) and the one at the west front of Strasbourg Cathedral (begun at the end of 12th century), for instance, were set in rectangular frames, as well. (Frankl 1962, 63; Domke 1959, 106)

Furthermore, the rose window above the north portal of the Mosque was constructed in two concentric circles and it was partitioned just like the western examples. Similarly, the rose window at the Portal of Christ at Bourges Cathedral (consecrated in 1324) had two concentric circles and it was divided into eight panels. (Fig. 64d) It had a quatrefoil in the inner circle, which was flanked by eight trilobe arches. (Domke 1959, 114) The rose window of Sungur Bey Mosque basically followed this geometrical arrangement with its partitioning, however it was far from the former’s refinement.

The rose windows observed on the Gothic cathedrals in Cyprus are also not compatible. The rose window on the west front of the Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Famagusta, for instance, was divided into nine sections, decorated with trefoils and trilobes.68 (Fig. 65a) The rose window on the Church of St. Mary of the Augustinians in Nicosia, on the other hand, resembled the one on Sungur Bey Mosque more. (Fig. 65b) The rose window on the west façade of the chapel on the north-east, had a central quatrefoil surrounded by eight trefoils. (Enlart 1987, 149, 236)

______68 Enlart (1987, 236) erroneously recorded it as having “eight” sections. This rose window was part of the large pointed window, surmounted by a gable in the center of the west front. This window was divided into six lights, grouped in three divisions. The tracery of the central one was a small quatrefoil, while the ones on the sides had large trefoils. The gable, on the other hand, was filled with a cusped trilobe.

53 The geometric arrangements of Sungur Bey Mosque differed from the European and Cypriot examples in another important respect, as well. The decoration of the latter examples were enriched by rosettes, trefoil and quatrefoil patterns. However, none of them had six-sided stars as in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque.69

All the same, the tympanum-rose window combination observed on the east portal of Sungur Bey Mosque was not the only example in Anatolia. A Hamidoğulları building from the 14th century, the Alaaddin Mosque in Antalya, Korkuteli, had a similar geometric arrangement on the tympanum of its portal.70 (Fig. 66) (Bakırer 2000, 81) Erken (1972, 601) attributed this rose window, as well as the one on Sungur Bey Mosque, to Mongol influence.

Round windows were not common in Anatolian Seljuk architecture. However, they made their appearance in some Principalities Period examples from the 14th and 15th centuries. An early Ottoman example, Süleyman Paşa Medresesi at İznik (1331), for instance, had round windows with circular tracery. (Fig. 67) In addition, Ak Medrese (1409) in Niğde, built during the Karamanid period, had circular elements above the twin ogee arches on its galleries in the upper floor, which might be inspired from Sungur Bey Mosque.71 (Fig. 42) (Goodwin 1971, 25, 43) Furthermore, another Ottoman example from the 15th century, Tokat Hatuniye Mosque (1485), had a geometric arrangement similar to a simplified rose window on its portal. (Fig. 68) (Çakmak 2001, 353) In this example, a circle in the center of the design was surrounded by six others, thereby forming a rosette. Thus, the design of this rose window repeated the one on the tympanum of the third window on the west façade of Sungur Bey Mosque.72

______69 Nevertheless, a star with five points was observed at the northern oculus of Amiens. (Frankl 1962, 223) 70 Unfortunately, the rose window on the tympanum of Alaeddin Mosque is considerably damaged. Therefore, it is not possible to compare it with the one at Sungur Bey Mosque. 71More importantly, the partitioning of the arches on the galleries recalled some Gothic examples. Each of the galleries on the upper floor had two large arches, which were divided by columns into two ogee arches. (Goodwin 1971, 43) Hüdavendigar Mosque in Bursa had a similar façade articulation as well. (Aslanapa 1993, 188) This form of loggia was derived from the Venetian palaces of Dalmatia. (Goodwin 1971, 43-44) It also appeared in the Byzantine Church of Parigoritissa in Arta (1282-1289). (Aslanapa 1993, 188) 72 See Section 5.2.4 for more information.

54 Round windows also appeared in Armenian Architecture, as early as the 7th century. (Goodwin 1971, 25) Cathedral of Ani (beginning of 11th century) (Fig. 69) and St. Gregory of Tigran Honents at Ani had round windows.73 (Donabedian 2001, 56) Nevertheless, they were just simple round windows, with very little decoration, if at all. Thus, the Armenian round windows did not provide a base for comparison for the geometric arrangements of Sungur Bey Mosque.

5.2.3 Recessed Arches of the Windows on the West Façade and in the Interior

The windows on the lower section of the west façade had recessed arches consisting of a series of moulded bands.74 The windows in the interior had similar recessed arches as well.

The first window on the south of the west façade had a half rectangular recessed arch. (Fig. 70) The moulding that framed it bent horizontally on the sides, just above the lintel. The other windows on the west façade, on the other hand, had wide pointed recessed arches, consisting of ovolo and grooved mouldings. (Fig. 71-73) Similar to the first window, the mouldings of the second and the third windows bent horizontally at the sides.

As mentioned before, the window on the east elevation was converted to a door to provide access to the tomb from the interior of the Mosque. (Fig. 26) This window also had a pointed recessed arch, which was framed by a series of mouldings.

5.2.3.1 Origins and Contemporary Examples

In the Romanesque Period, arches were built in a series of recessed rings, each forming a center on which the next was built and each projecting beyond the last. This style persisted through the Gothic period, however the mouldings became pointed, smaller and more intricate. (Stewart 1961, 33)

______73 One of the windows at St. Gregory of Tigran Honents appeared to have a quatrefoil pattern as far as it could be identified from its picture. (Khatchatrian 1972, Fig. 66-67) 74 In western architecture, “archivolt” is the term used for the moulded frame that surrounds a door or window, however the term “recessed arch” will be used in this thesis.

55 Arches built in this style also appeared in the Gothic buildings of the Eastern Crusader States and Cyprus. The Eastern Crusader Cathedral of Tortosa, for instance, had round arched mouldings over its windows, as well as over its doorway. (Pringle 1993, 166)

Similarly, the doorways in Cyprus were constructed in the same style as exemplified in the Cathedral of St. Sophia, St. Catherine (Fig. 74a) and St. Nicholas (Fig. 74b) in Nicosia. Moreover, the windows of some Gothic buildings in Cyprus were more characteristic of the ones at Sungur Bey Mosque, with their arched mouldings, which were bent horizontally at the sides. In the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia, for instance, the windows at the lower section of the south façade had slightly pointed arched mouldings, which bent horizontally at the sides.75 (Fig. 75) Furthermore, the mouldings observed at the refectory of Bellapais Abbey were particularly reminiscent of the second and the third windows on the west façade of Sungur Bey Mosque. (Fig. 76) (Enlart 1987, Plates VII, XI, XIV, XV, XXV) Goodwin (1971, 25) also drew attention to the similarity between the windows of the Sungur Bey Mosque and those of the Bellapais Abbey.

Nevertheless, similar examples were observed in Armenian architecture as well. Armenian doorways and arches were primarily simple and round, but other forms evolved showing a striking parallel with the Romanesque and Gothic Architecture in Europe. Doorways were recessed in two or three orders as in the Romanesque or they were encased in several concentric bands of ornament, not necessarily divided into arches or columns. (Buxton 1934, 87) The arches on the western porch of the Cathedral of Ani, for instance, were stepped and recessed, which gave it the impression of a Romanesque portal. (Khatchatrian 1972, 47)

Armenian windows, on the other hand, were surmounted by arched mouldings, sometimes sculptured with floral decoration and they turned away horizontally at the sides. (Hamilton 1956, 133) Church of Aght’amar, for instance had round arched mouldings, which bent horizontally at the sides. (Fig. 77) (İpşiroğlu 2003, 57)

______75 In the 14th century, houses built in Nicosia often had similar windows as well. A sketch by Enlart (1987, 402), for instance, illustrated a house near St. Sophia, with a recessed arch reminiscent of the ones in Sungur Bey Mosque.

56 Likewise, the Cathedral of Ani (Fig. 69) and the Principal Church at Marmasen Monastery had similar windows. (Donabedian 2001, 56, 66)

Thus, the recessed arches of the windows on the west façade of the Mosque recalled these Romanesque and Gothic examples, as well as the Armenian ones in their design. Nevertheless, Sungur Bey Mosque was not a unique example in Anatolia. Some Anatolian examples dating from the 13th and 14th centuries, also had similar recessed arches on their windows or portals, built in the style mentioned above.

The portal of Kızıltepe (Dunaysır) Great Mosque (an Artuqid mosque from 1204), for instance, was framed by profiled mouldings, similar to a Gothic arch.76 (Fig. 78) In addition, the entrances on both sides of the portal had pointed arches consisting of a series of ovolo mouldings. (Altun 1978, 81)

Moreover, the recessed arch of the window on the upper storey of Ahi Yusuf Tomb in Antalya (1249) had a richly moulded chevron design, which recalled the mouldings of the Romanesque examples. (Fig. 79) Riefstahl (1931, 49) drew attention to the use of similar forms in some monuments in Cyprus and accordingly he suggested a common source in Palestine.

Likewise, the portal of Divriği Hospital in Sivas (a Mengücek building from 1228- 1229) was considered similar to the Gothic portals because of the frame of its portal, which consisted of a series of arches with rich mouldings.77 (Fig. 80) According to Kuban (1999, 151), the portal of Divriği Hospital could not be explained on the basis

______76 In addition, its portal had round cusped corner columns. A band, consisting of circular interlaces surrounded the north façade of the Mosque as well. 77 In addition, Kuban (1999, 119) mentions a number of other architectural forms, which also point to a foreign interaction in the case of Divriği Hospital. These are summarized as follows: 1. The clustered corner columns of the portal, which have capitals decorated with floral motifs; and the series of mouldings which rise above these capitals; 2. The big, decorative consoles on both sides of the portal; 3. Rich profiles of the plinth; 4. The large window on the portal, which is divided into two sections by a richly decorated column; 5. Lack of a rectangular frame on the portal; 6. Human figures on the portal. The portals and ornamentation program of the Divriği Complex, as well as its vaults, mihrab and minber reflect a synthesis of different styles. This could only be explained on the basis of artists from different milieu and architectural traditions. Thus, according to Sönmez (1989, 165-166) Hürremşah bin Mugis el-Hılati (the architect) and Ahmed Nakkaş Hılati worked with a team of artists from different traditions.

57 of an influence from the Caucasus, Armenia or Crusader States in Syria, as such a rich series of mouldings were only observed in the Late Gothic Architecture. Nevertheless, there was a hierarchy in the Gothic portals and none of them had a parallel crowning arch of the same height, as it was the case in the portal of the Divriği Hospital. (Kuban 1999, 113)

Last but not least, Ahmed Gazi Medresesi at Peçin (a Menteşeoğulları building from 1375) had a rich series of pointed mouldings that framed the portal, reminiscent of the Gothic portals.78 (Fig. 81) (Ünal 2000, 43) Scholars attempted to explain the source of this foreign architectural form observed on the portal of Ahmed Gazi Medresesi on different grounds. Sözen (1970, 180) basically focused on the relations of Menteşeoğulları with the west. Likewise, Ünal (2000, 43), emphasized the Principality’s trade relations with the Aegean islands, Italian merchant cities and Southern France. Aslanapa (1971, 187), on the other hand, mentioned the cathedrals of Cyprus, as well as the eastern Crusader cathedrals of Acre and other towns in Palestine among the possible sources.

5.2.4 Tympana of the Windows on the West Façade and in the Interior

Each of the four rectangular windows placed in the lower section of the wall on the west façade had a different decoration in their tympana, all executed in openwork carving technique.

The tympanum of the first window on the south of the west façade was filled with a geometric interlace of hexagons, as indicated in the photographs and drawings by Gabriel. (Fig. 82) (Gabriel 1962, Plan XII) Nevertheless, it is mutilated completely today. (Fig. 70)

The tympanum of the second window had trefoil patterns. (Fig. 71) The trefoil pattern at the bottom left corner was in a fairly good condition, however, the other two patterns have mutilated.

______78 Furthermore, the traditional geometric interlaces and floral patterns were replaced by mouldings consisting of half circles on its portal. The lion figures on the main iwan of the medrese, which held flags, also seemed to diverge from the Anatolian Seljuk tradition. (Sözen 1970, 180-181)

58 The tympanum of the third window, on the other hand, was ornamented with circles. (Fig. 72) A circle in the center was surrounded by six others and these were, in return, encircled by a larger one.

The tympanum of the fourth window was decorated with a geometric interlace. (Fig. 73) There was a six-sided star in the center of the design and a hexagon was formed in the core of the star. As Bakırer (2000, 77) has pointed out, the geometric interlace consisting of hexagons, which was widely used in the Anatolian Seljuk and some Principalities Period portals, “gained a new identity” in this arrangement, by hollowing the background.

Although the same carving technique was used in these tympana, variations were observed in their execution depending on the skill of the artists. Moreover, two different styles were identified in their design. The geometric arrangements developing from hexagons on the first window on the south of the west façade, and the fourth window on the north were similar to each other. (Fig. 70, 73) These geometric arrangements were reminiscent of other Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Period examples. They also resembled the geometric interlaces observed on the portals of the Mosque in the development of the design from basic geometric principles.79 (Bakırer 2000, 80)

All the same, the tympana of the second and the third windows on the west façade, were different from the former in the sense that the priorities emphasized in the design were altered. (Fig. 71, 72) As Bakırer (2000, 81) has pointed out, the basic geometric principles of these designs were not totally isolated from the Anatolian Seljuk geometric interlaces, however the geometric elements had a plastic identity. Besides, a light-shadow effect was created in addition to depth, just like the geometric arrangements above the north portal and on the tympanum of the east portal. (Fig. 60, 61) (Bakırer 2000, 81)

______79 The most important difference, on the other hand, was hollowing out the background in openwork carving technique. Besides, the geometric decoration of the portals portrayed a careful and skillful design and execution, while the tympana of the first and fourth windows on the west façade were rather coarse. (Bakırer 2000, 80)

59 Similarly, the window on the east elevation, which was converted to a door to provide access to the tomb, had a similar tympanum decorated in the style mentioned above. (Fig. 83) A large circle in the center of the tympanum was flanked by trefoil patterns on both sides. There was a six-sided star inside this circle and another six-sides star was located at the core of the design.

5.2.4.1 Origins and Contemporary Examples

In Gothic churches, the windows were generally divided into lights and the spandrel above these lights was ornamented with tracery.80 Initially, simple geometrical forms consisting of circles or foiled patterns were used, which was known as “geometrical tracery”. (Fleming et. al. 1975, 287) The windows in the choir of Amiens Cathedral, for instance, were divided into six lights, grouped in two main divisions. (Fig. 84) The tracery of the windows in the upper section of the choir consisted of two trefoils and a rosette, all set in circles. The tracery of the windows in the lower section, on the other hand, had just trefoils. (Grodecki 1986, 64)

Numerous Gothic buildings in Cyprus also displayed similar examples. In the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia, for instance, the windows of the nave were divided into four lights, surmounted by a tracery of four circles. The main circle was decorated with a quatrefoil, while the others had trefoils. Likewise, in the Church of Our Lady of Tyre in Nicosia, the windows of the nave were divided into four lights and their tracery consisted of three quatrefoils, which were framed by circles. Moreover, in the Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Famagusta, the tracery of the lower windows of the choir consisted of three trefoils set in circles. The upper windows of the Cathedral, on the other hand, were decorated with rosettes. (Enlart 1987, 111, 134, 232)

Tracery was also used decoratively in blank arches. (Fleming et. al. 1975, 287) The arcades of the cloister at the Salisbury Cathedral, for instance, had a tracery ______80 In early Gothic churches, the spandrel was often pierced by a circle, quatrefoil or a similar simple form, which was known as “plate tracery”. Later, two lights began to be separated by a moulded mullion and the moulding continued at the head forming bars of circular or quatrefoil forms and leaving the rest of the spandrels open. This kind of tracery was first introduced at Reims and it was called “bar tracery”. Subsequently, other more complex forms, such as “flowing tracery”, “intersecting tracery” and “panel tracery” also evolved. (Fleming et. al. 1975, 287)

60 consisting of quatrefoils and cinquefoils. (Fig. 85) (Stewart 1954, 129) Similarly, the cloister at the Crusader Castle of Krak des Chevaliers, had a tracery consisting of rosettes set in circles. (Boase 1967, 57) At Bellapais Abbey in Cyprus, the arcades of the cloister, dating from the 14th century, had two lights in each opening. (Fig. 86) Furthermore, their tympana were decorated with a tracery of trefoils and quatrefoils set in circles.81 (Enlart 1987, 189)

Thus, the tympana of the windows on the west façade of Sungur Bey Mosque recalled these Gothic examples with “geometrical tracery”, however with some important differences. First of all, the windows of the Mosque were not divided into lights as in the Gothic examples. Secondly, it was the tympanum that was decorated in Sungur Bey Mosque. Finally, only the second and the third windows, which were decorated with trefoils and circles (Fig. 71, 72), resembled the “geometrical tracery” of the Gothic examples.

All the same, the design and execution of the tympanum of the windows on the west façade were also reminiscent of the marble window grilles observed in early Islamic examples. (Bakırer 2000, 81) In the Great Mosque of Damascus, for instance, the windows in the western vestibule were decorated with geometric interlaces developing from six-sided stars and circles. (Fig. 87) (Creswell 1958, 56)

Similarly, marble window grilles were also observed in some examples in the Principalities Period. In İlyas Bey Mosque at Balat, for instance, the marble grilles located on the sides of the entrance on the north façade, were decorated with hexagons and six-sided stars.82 (Fig. 88) (Durukan 1988, 15, 16, fig. 10) These window grilles were particularly similar to the decoration of the first and the fourth windows on the west façade of Sungur Bey Mosque. Nonetheless, the decoration in Damascus Great Mosque and İlyas Bey Mosque were applied to the entire surface of the window, while they were only limited to the tympanum in Sungur Bey Mosque.

______81 The mullions are mutilated, but some fragments of this tracery still remain. (Enlart 1987, 189) 82 In addition, the window grilles on the upper section of the east, west and south façades were decorated with hexagons. However, these window grilles were probably not original and they were renewed in the repairs.

61 5.2.5 Moulded Band on the Exterior and in the Interior of the Mosque

A moulded band, consisting of plain and ovolo mouldings and bands decorated with a raised geometric composition with herringbone patterns, ran at the center of each façade. (Fig. 89) This moulded band surrounded the Mosque on the east, north and south façades on the exterior and it continued as a plain band on the west façade. In the interior, on the other hand, it ran on all four sides without interruption.

5.2.5.1 Contemporary Examples

The moulded band observed on Sungur Bey Mosque was an exceptional case in Anatolia. Moreover, no matching example could be identified from Cyprus or from the western and eastern Gothic buildings.

Nevertheless, the figurative band on the Armenian Church of Aght’amar (Fig. 50) resembled the moulded band of Sungur Bey Mosque, in concept. The figurative band on Aght’amar consisted of a vine scroll animated with various scenes and figures and it surrounded the Church on the exterior. (Der Nersessian 1965, 11)

5.2.6 Clustered Piers Inside the Mosque

Eight clustered piers were attached to the walls of the Mosque in the interior. (Fig. 90-91) These clustered piers were not identical and three different profiles were observed, as indicated in the drawings of Gabriel. (1962, Fig. 21)

5.2.6.1 Origin and Contemporary Examples

Clustered piers appeared as a group of columns, with each column in the group supporting its own order of arches or the vaulting rib.83 (Stewart 1954, 156; Domke 1959, VII, XX) They were observed in Romanesque, as well as in Gothic Architecture.

Clustered piers entered England from Normandy and many examples from the 11th century were observed on the Continent. The clustered piers in the Abbaye-aux-

______83 Clustered piers were a characteristic feature of the Decorated Architecture in England, which corresponded to the High Gothic Architecture. (Domke 1959, VIII)

62 Hommes, Caen (begun in 1066) were among the earliest fully developed examples. In England, nave arcades of clustered piers like those at l’Abbaye-aux-Dames were found at Ely and Winchester. Moreover, Durham Cathedral (begun in 1093 and completed by 1140 except the towers) had great clustered piers alternating with cylindrical columns in the nave and choir. (Fig. 57) In Italy, on the other hand, the diagonal rib and clustered pier, which were combined in the little church of Sannazzaro (close to Milan - completed before the middle of the 11th century), was among the earliest examples. (Stewart 1954, 156, 177, 218, 226, 232)

Many Gothic Cathedrals in Europe, such as Amiens, Notre Dame Paris, San Francesco at Asisi, Bonn Münster, Chartres, Cologne, Halberstadt, Laon, Siena and Reims had clustered piers. (Grodecki 1986, 36, 69; Branner 1967, fig. 1, 37, 60, 66, 83; Domke 1959, 4, 8, 53, 135)

Besides, clustered piers made their appearance in the Eastern Crusader States as well. The Cathedral of Tortosa, for instance, had clustered piers. (Fedden and Thomson 1957, 16) Gothic buildings in Cyprus, on the other hand, had frequently cylindrical columns as interior supports. Nevertheless, St. Nicholas in Nicosia and the cloisters and refectory at Bellapais Abbey had clustered piers. (Enlart 1987, 39, 192)

All the same, the clustered piers observed in Armenian architecture predated these Romanesque and Gothic examples. (Der Manuelian 2001, 9; Donabedian 2001, 52) As Donabedian (2001, 42) pointed out, the Cathedral of Argina (probably begun around 973, now completely destroyed) was one of the first accomplished examples of clustered pillars with projections, which corresponded in number to the steps of the arches they supported. This was an important innovation credited to Trdat.84 (Donabedian 2001, 42) Moreover, the clustered piers and arches of the Cathedral of Ani made some authors consider this monument as a “precursor of Gothic Architecture.”85 (Fig. 92) The piers at Ani were split into a bundle of pilasters, half-

______84 For more information on Trdat, see (Marancı 2003) 85 Strzygowski (1923, 72-73) wrote: “It is a delight in a church earlier than A.D. 1000, to see the builder, the Court architect Trdat, carrying Armenian art so successfully post ‘Romanesque’ to ‘Gothic’ that many have been at a loss to explain this cathedral in any other way than a reconstruction by a western master in the 13th century.” Also see (Khatchatrian 1972, 56; Buxton 1934, 91 and Der Nersessain 1945, 73).

63 pilasters and a half column, which corresponded to the steps of the slightly pointed arches. Two other buildings attributed to Trdat, the Church of the Holy Cross at Halbat and the Principal Church at Marmasen (completed by 1029) had clustered supports as well. (Donabedian 2001, 52, 53)

Clustered columns were also observed in Anatolia. However, they were not used as interior supports, but employed as buttresses or used on the corner columns of portals. Sultan Han between Konya and Aksaray (1229) and Karatay Han, for instance, had buttresses in the form of clustered columns. (Fig. 93) Similarly, the north portal of Divriği Great Mosque (Fig. 94), the portal of Divriği Hospital and the north portal of Kızıltepe (Dunaysır) Great Mosque had clustered corner columns. (Kuban 1999, 101; Altun 1978, 81)

64

CHAPTER 6

POSSIBLE INTERACTIONS

Throughout the Middle Ages, Anatolia was susceptible to different artistic currents as a result of various interactions such as wars, invasions, crusades, migrations, pilgrimage, trade contacts, diplomatic relations and traveling artists. During the Principalities Period, for instance, Zengid, Ayyubid, Mameluk, Great Seljuk and Byzantine influences were observed on architecture due to such contacts. (Öney 1989, 3; Aslanapa 1971, 170, 174,181)

In this chapter, some interactions, which are likely to be the sources of the foreign forms observed on Sungur Bey Mosque will be evaluated and questioned. It is not possible to consider each possible interaction separately within the scope of this thesis, therefore these interactions are limited to crusades, trade relations and traveling artists, which single out as the most prominent ones. Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that there may be more than one interaction in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque and still there may be other interactions, which are not considered in this study.

6.1 Crusades

The initial objective of the Crusades was to help the Christian Churches in the East and to free the Holy Land - particularly Jerusalem, the Sepulchre of Christ. (Mayer 1988, 9) Thousands of men from France, England, Germany, Normandy, Italy, Denmark and Flanders, all loosely named as “Franks”, participated in several crusades in the Middle Ages. (Hamilton 1965, 147, 207-208) Thus, the continuous wave of crusaders and pilgrims from Europe to the East and the returning ones from

65 the East to the West, contributed to an intercourse between the cultures.

The Crusades certainly had a great impact on the diffusion of Gothic Architecture in Europe, as well as in the Mediterranean and the Near East. As Runciman (1966, III/379) points out, “the Crusaders undoubtedly brought with them their architects, who were imbued in the styles of France, particularly of Provence and the Toulousain.” The French master Eudes de Montreuil, for instance, accompanied St. Louis on the crusade between 1248 and 1254 and he designed military works at Jaffa. Moreover, an English mason William, went on crusade with Richard Coeur-de-Lion in 1190 and he built a church at Acre. (Harvey 1972, 155) Particularly the Third Crusade brought many western artists and workmen to the East and the surviving work at Nazareth showed that the Crusader architecture kept in touch with the Gothic movement in Europe. (Runciman 1966, III/383)

These crusader artists and workers, who passed through Anatolia, possibly facilitated the transmission of Gothic influences to Anatolia. Only the First (1096-1099), Second (1145-1149) and the Third Crusades (1187-1192)86 took the overland route to Palestine through Anatolia. (Fig. 95) Moreover, the Fourth Crusade (1198-1204) and the First Crusader League (1332-1334) were directly aimed at Constantinople and the Aegean coast, respectively. These crusades, in turn, will be considered in the following section and an investigation of their routes, as well as their dates will shed light on the possibility of such an interaction.87

6.1.1 First Crusade (1096-1099)

The First Crusaders marched across Europe and arrived at Constantinople in the fall of 1096. Then they moved to the city of Nicaea (İznik), the Seljuk capital, and besieged it in 1097. (Hamilton 1965, 37, 56) The Crusaders defeated the Seljuk army in Dorylaeum (Eskişehir) and by mid August, they reached Iconium (Konya). They

______86 It is difficult to give the exact dates for the Crusades, as a continuous wave of Crusaders arrived at the Holy Land. The dates of the Crusades differ in various sources. Hence, the dates given by Mayer (1988,40, 93, 137) are taken as the base for the discussion in this thesis. 87 The Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Crusades, on the other hand, were aimed directly at Egypt and they followed the sea route. (Hamilton 1965, 245, 270; Lilie 1999, 81) A complete account of the Crusades will not be given in this section, however their connection with Anatolia and Cyprus will be demonstrated. See Annex 1 for a chronology of events in the history of the Crusades.

66 went on to Tyana, which was located 23 km. southwest of Niğde and they captured Niğde and Aksaray in 1097. (Anonim 1982, 8:6162) Then they passed through the Cilician Gates to Tarsus and proceeded to Syria. The main army, however followed the road which first took them to Caesarea (Kayseri) and then turned south-east to cross the Anti-Taurus on its way to Maraş. (Mayer 1988, 47, 48) They finally arrived at Antioch in 1097. (Hamilton 1965, 61) After the First Crusade, the Frankish states of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Edessa and the County of Tripoli were established in the East between 1098 and 1109. (Hamilton 1965, 110)

6.1.2 Second Crusade (1145-1149)

The Second Crusade was a reaction to the capture of Edessa by Zengi in 1144. German and French crusaders took the route through Hungary into Byzantium and they arrived at Constantinople in 1147. They decided to follow the path of the first Crusaders through the Turkish held land, instead of taking the coast route. They arrived at Nicaea, however they were attacked and defeated by the Anatolian Seljuks near Dorylaeum. Then they took the coast route and they finally arrived at Antioch in 1148. (Hamilton 1965, 143, 151-153)

6.1.3 Third Crusade (1187-1192)

The Third Crusade was a reaction to the defeat at Hattin and the loss of Jerusalem in 1187. (Lilie 1999, 79) While the English and French Crusaders took the sea route to Acre, German troops crossed Hungary into the Byzantine territory. German army stepped into the Anatolian Seljuk territory in 1190. They approached the city of Seleucia, but with the dead of their Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, the Crusade fell apart and only a few men succeeded to arrive at Antioch. (Hamilton 1965, 210-211)

As far as the dates of the First, Second and the Third Crusades were concerned, they were too early for a direct transmission of a foreign influence in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque. Nevertheless, the most important outcome of the Third Crusade, concerning this thesis, was the conquest of Cyprus by the King of England, Richard I, in 1191. (Hamilton 1965, 212) Richard I sold the island to the Templars and later

67 it was handed over to Guy de Lusignan in 1192. (Fedden and Thomson 1957, 108) Guy de Lusignan made efforts to populate the island with western settlers and he brought artists to the island who would construct churches, castles and palaces for him. (Enlart 1987, 33) In addition, Cyprus maintained close contacts with Europe as a result of crusades, pilgrims and trade relations. The island served as a supply base to the crusaders and as a station for the pilgrim traffic to the Holy Land. (Furber 1969, 600; Mayer 1988, 239) Hence, it was exposed to Gothic architecture of French schools starting from 1200s.88 (Enlart 1987, 34)

6.1.4 Fourth Crusade (1198-1204)

Although the initial objective of the Fourth Crusade was Egypt, it was diverted to Constantinople. The Crusaders besieged and sacked Constantinople in April 1204 and a Latin Empire was established in Constantinople. (Hamilton 1965, 224, 234, 237) Moreover, the Byzantine parts of the Balkan Peninsula were divided into fiefs and Aegean islands were assigned to the Venetians. (Newhall 1963, 77)

The period of Latin domination in Constantinople was not very productive architecturally and only the southeast porch of St. Sophia was constructed during this period. Although the Fourth Crusade did not play a role in the transmission of Gothic influences in Anatolia, the Latin principalities established in the former Byzantine territories were receptive to Gothic architecture and a number of castles, abbeys and churches were constructed in the western style from the 13th century on. (Mango 1978, 141)

6.1.5 First Crusader League (1332-1334)

In the beginning of the 14th century, the newly emerging Turkoman principalities in western Anatolia began to make attacks to Latin territories in the Aegean. A Crusader League was established against this Turkish threat by Venice, France and Cyprus. This Latin fleet captured Turkish ships at sea and raided various places in Asia Minor in 1334. An important naval battle took place in the Gulf of ______88 According to Güven (1999, 29), “the typical hallmarks of the French Gothic style” are easily recognized in the architectural layout, articulation of façades and in the decorative details of churches and cathedrals in the Lusignan Cyprus. For more information, see (Güven 1999)

68 Adramyttion (Edremit). The Turkish fleet was defeated and as a result, Turkish expansion on the Aegean was temporarily stopped. (Zachariadou 1983, 32-33, 92) The date of this Crusader League was very close to the construction of Sungur Bey Mosque. Hence, it could play a part in the transmission of foreign influences.

In conclusion, Crusades of 1097, 1147, 1190 and 1204 were not likely to result in a direct transmission of a foreign influence in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque. All the same, these Crusades played an important role in the diffusion of Gothic architecture to territories outside the original breeding of this style. As Frankl (1960, 233) pointed out, Franks who founded kingdoms in the Levant and in Cyprus, transplanted their Gothic architecture to the Orient and conversely borrowed some local specimens from them.

The Crusader League of 1334, on the other hand, could possibly play a part in the transmission of a foreign architectural style in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque, as far as its date was concerned.89 Although it was aimed directly at the Aegean coast, artists or workers who participated in this League, could hypothetically land at the western coast and travel in Anatolia all the way to Niğde.

6.2 Trade Relations

The itinerary of the land and sea routes are studied and trade relations during the Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Periods are investigated in this section.

6.2.1 Land and Sea Routes

Anatolia was knit by the system of roads, which were mainly inherited from the Roman Empire.90 These roads were used by armies and officials, as well as by merchants and pilgrims. (Vryonis 1971, 30) There were two main trade routes extending on the east-west and north-south directions and their itineraries are marked on the map. (Fig. 96)

______89The foreign influences observed at the Ahmed Gazi Medresesi at Peçin could be possibly associated with this Crusader League, as well. 90 Hittite and Assyrian commercial colony roads, Persian royal roads and Byzantine road networks also existed. (Önge 2004, 106)

69 1. The land route on the east-west direction, extended from Turkistan and Iran to Constantinople via Sivas and Ankara. This route was traditionally used by the Byzantine Empire to supply merchandise from the East. Another route extended from Tabriz to Alaiye and Antalya via Erzurum, Sivas, Kayseri, Aksaray and Konya.91 (Delilbaşı 1987, 481; Önge 2004, 106)

2. The sea route, on the other hand, extended on the north-south direction, connecting Egypt, Syria or European ports. Merchandise landed at Antalya, Alaiye and Yumurtalık was transported either via Kayseri and Sivas by the first route, or via Syria- Iraq route to Elbistan, Kayseri, Sinop or Samsun, where they were taken to Suğdak port in Crimea via the sea. (Delilbaşı 1987, 481) Besides, Anatolian Seljuks also profited from the Black Sea trade. The merchandise landed in Samsun or Sinop was taken via Amasya and Tokat to Sivas, then to Kayseri and Konya. (Sinclair 1987, I/ 107) In addition, the merchandise landed in Sinop was transported to Aleppo via Sivas and Malatya. (Önge 2004, 106)

The Ilkhanids favoured trade and succeeded in policing an important route to Tabriz, which gave Italian merchants the easiest way to exchange and forward goods.92 The route started with the unloading of ships at the Cilician port of Ayas, and went to Kayseri, via Cilician Gates, then to Sivas, Erzincan and Erzurum. Italian merchants also reached Tabriz by taking a second route via Trabzon on the Black Sea coast and the road through the Pontic Mountains to Erzurum. A third route extended from Azerbaijan to Erzurum via Khoy, Erciş and Malazgirt. (Sinclair 1987, I/109)

Sivas, Kayseri, Konya, Antalya, Aksaray, Malatya, Harput, Erzurum and Diyarbakır were important trade centers by the end of the 13th century. (Delilbaşı 1987, 484) Niğde was located on the main trade route that connected Kayseri and its hinterland extending to Sivas and Amasya, to Adana plain, Mediterranean coast and eventually to Syria. (Darkot 1988, 9: 253) The strategic location of Niğde on this main trade

______91 In addition, there were two roads starting from Kayseri. The first route led to Aleppo via Göksun and Maraş. The second route passed through Malatya and Sarız or, Karakilise, Hurman, Elbistan, Göynük, and led to Aleppo via Deluk. (Önge 2004, 106) 92 A treaty concluded between the Ilkhanids and Venetians in 1331-1332 assured the security of this route. (Gabashvili 2002, 390)

70 route enabled merchants, pilgrims, travelers and artists to come to Niğde not only from the south or north, but also from the east or west.

All the same, political instability adversely affected the commercial activity in Niğde in the beginning of the 14th century. The road between Konya and Aksaray was completely closed for two years, until the towers destroyed in the rebellion against the Karamanids in 1304, were rebuilt. The road between Niğde and Eyüphisar was unsafe for a two-year period when the Turkomans took over the fort of Saraf Hisar in 1300. (Vryonis 1971, 247-248) Nonetheless, Ibn Battuta visited Niğde towards 1333 and his travel notes indicated that commerce and travel was not disrupted completely in the beginning of the 14th century.

6.2.2 Trade Relations During Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Periods

Before the Turkish conquest in the 11th century, Anatolian cities were subject to powerful currents of commerce. (Vryonis 1971, 22) Nevertheless, the initial Turkish conquest disrupted trade in Anatolia considerably. As the conditions in Anatolia gradually stabilized in the 12th century, the Greek merchants of Konya reappeared in trade between Konya and Constantinople, between Konya, Cilicia and Cyprus and between northern Anatolia and Cappadocia. (Vryonis 1971, 222, 479)

Crusades had a positive impact on the development of trade in Anatolia. After the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the Latins, the Straits began to be controlled by the Venetians, which increased the significance of trade routes in Anatolia. (Delilbaşı 1987, 481) Moreover, trade and economic policies of the Anatolian Seljuk Sultans also played an important role in the development of trade in Anatolia. Sultans such as Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev, İzzeddin Keykavus and Alaeddin Keykubad encouraged trade by providing the security of the caravan roads, building caravanserais, imposing commercial insurance systems and giving legal rights to merchants. (Önge 2004, 103-104)

Antalya and Sinop were taken in 1207 and 1214, during the reign of Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev and İzzeddin Keykavus, respectively. Moreover, the ports of Alaiye on the south and Suğdak on the north were captured. (Delilbaşı 1987, 482, 484)

71 Saltukids and Menguchekids in the northeast were suppressed and the Taurus and eastern frontiers were consolidated during the first half of the 13th century. The unification of these areas under the Anatolian Seljuks, the acquisition of ports on the Black Sea and Mediterranean coasts for the first time and the comparative internal peace and stability resulted in an economic prosperity in most of Anatolia. (Vryonis 1971, 133) This also had a positive impact on trade. The extensive number of caravanserais and khans that were built during the 13th century was a striking testimony to this development.93 During this period, merchants from Egypt, Middle East, Crimea and from the Latin and Byzantine west visited Anatolia in increasing numbers. (Vryonis 1971, 223) Moreover, treaties were concluded with the Italian merchant cities and Cyprus in the beginning of the 13th century.94

All the same, the Mongol invasion and the deteriorating conditions in Anatolia significantly decreased the extent of the commercial activity starting from the 1230s. The Khwarazmian tribes stopped the Syrian caravans in 1239-40, while the Ağaçheri of Maraş destroyed the caravans in Anatolia, Armenia and Syria. Karamanids also began to interfere with the caravans in southern Anatolia. (Vryonis 1971, 247)

Moreover, the collapse of the Anatolian Seljuks in 1308 and the subsequent break down of the Ilkhanid Empire in 1335 caused the disruption of trade between the East and the West. Central and eastern Anatolia suffered from this political instability the most. The disappearance of Yabanlu markets near Kayseri in the 14th century was clearly an indicator of this disruption. With the shift of center of gravity to the western regions by the conquests of the emerging principalities, trading activity in western Anatolia gained importance. (Tanyeli 1987, 104) Thus, Venetians took measures to develop trade relations with Menteşeoğulları and Aydınoğulları in

______93 Several caravanserais were built along these trade routes during the 13th century. Many of them were built along the route starting from Malatya and Elbistan, stretching through Kayseri, Aksaray, Konya and Beyşehir on the west and Bithynia and Constantinople via Akşehir Afyon, Kütahya and Eskişehir on the north. As the Anatolian Seljuks conquered regions on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, caravanserais were also built toward Samsun and Sinop on the north and Antalya on the south. (Vryonis 1971, 222, 223) 94 Trade relations with Italian merchant cities and Cyprus will be considered in more detail in Section 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.2.2.

72 western Anatolia. (Delilbaşı 1987, 486) In addition, relations with Cyprus, Rhodes and Chios were also maintained. (Turan 1958, 119)

Trade relations were also carried out with Syria and Egypt during the Principalities Period. Caravans were continuously travelling between Bursa and Damascus and between Bursa and Tabriz.95 (Cantay 2002, 16) Many Egyptian and Syrian merchants, as well as western merchants came to Antalya and Alanya and they proceeded to Suğdak and Kefe via Sinop and Samsun. (Delilbaşı 1987, 487)

6.2.2.1 Trade Relations with the Latins

Most of the Aegean islands were conquered by the Venetians consequent to the Fourth Crusade. The island of Crete was the major colony of the Venetians and Cretan ports occupied an intermediary position in the commercial relations between Venice and the states of the Levant. Hospitaller Rhodes and Genoese Chios were also important entrepots for the European merchants. (Zachariadou 1983, XXXIV, 92, 126) Thus, treaties concluded with the Latins during the Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Periods, provided an intercourse with those western people, who were engaged in trade in the Aegean and the Mediterranean.

Anatolian Seljuks concluded treaties with the Latins subsequent to the capture of the ports in the Mediterranean. (Turan 1958, 117) Freedom of trade was granted to Venetian merchants within the Anatolian Seljuk territory in three treaties, however only the third one granted in 1220, during the reign of Alaeddin Keykubad survived. (Zachariadou 1983, 3) Accordingly, Venetian merchants could import wheat, silver, gold and precious stones and they could appoint a consul in Anatolia.96 In addition, life and merchandise of merchants were guaranteed bilaterally. (Heyd 1975, 333; Delilbaşı 1987, 484)

As the newly emerging principalities conquered territories in western Anatolia, Venetians took measures to develop trade relations with Menteşeoğulları and

______95 Timber, bitumen and slaves were exported to Egypt, while spices, linen and sugar were imported. (Cantay 2002, 16) 96 The Genoese had a consul in Sivas and Venetians in Konya in the 13th century. (Delilbaşı 1987, 484)

73 Aydınoğulları, which had important ports like Palatio (Balat) and Theologo (Ayasuluğ). Venetians carried out their relations with the Principalities via their major colony Crete and concluded treaties with Menteşeoğulları and Aydınoğulları in 1331 and 1337 respectively. Accordingly, freedom of trade was granted to Venetian merchants and a Venetian consul was appointed in Balat and Ayasuluğ. Besides, an area was granted to Venetian merchants within the Menteşe and Aydın territories, for their buildings and premises. (Delilbaşı 1987, 486)

Moreover, Hospitallers established on Rhodes had active trade relations with Menteşeoğulları in the beginning of the 14th century. Merchants from Rhodes were visiting the ports of Menteşeoğulları to purchase provisions and animals in 1311. Nevertheless, their relations were disrupted when Menteşeoğulları began to make raids to Rhodes. (Zachariadou 1983, 11-12)

Genoese, on the other hand, were mainly engaged with Black Sea trade during the 14th century. (Zachariadou 1983, 3) However, they had also trade with the south coast of Anatolia. (Heyd 1975, 611)

6.2.2.2 Trade Relations with Cyprus

Cyprus had a strategic importance for the Crusades, since it served as a supply base and as a place of refuge for those who had to flee from the Holy Land. (Mayer 1988, 239) In addition, it was a key post on the international trade in the Mediterranean as a stopping-off point for traders and pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land.

During the Byzantine rule, Venetians were granted some trade privileges, however Genoese became prominent under the Lusignan rule. Pisan, Catalan and Armenian merchants also made trading agreements with the Cypriots. (Phillips 1995, 128) Thus, Italians, Catalans and Provencials, who were the dominant power in the Mediterranean trade, began to use Famagusta as the hub of their operations. (Dunn 1986, 139) Moreover, the economic importance of Cyprus grew after the fall of Acre in 1291 and Famagusta took over Acre’s role in the east-west trade. (Mayer 1988, 244)

74 Trade relations with Cyprus started during the reign of Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev I, and they were maintained during the reign of İzzeddin Keykavus as well. Correspondence between King of Cyprus and Keykavus between 1214 and 1216 granted the freedom of trade bilaterally.97 In addition, according to a decree by the King of Cyprus, dating from 1236, trade relations were maintained between Provencials and Anatolian Seljuks during the reign of Alaeddin Keykubad. (Turan 1958, 110, 113, 125) Accordingly, Provencials were engaged in the transit trade between Cyprus and Konya. (Heyd 1975, 334)

Genoese and Venetian merchants took goods to Anatolia via Cyprus and merchants from Cyprus occasionally visited Antalya. (Heyd 1975, 613) Thus, Cyprus acted as a bridge between the trade of the Anatolian Seljuks and Europeans. (Delilbaşı 1987, 483) Trade relations were also maintained during the Principalities Period. Wheat was exported to Cyprus from Balat during this period (Heyd 1975, 608)

To sum up, Anatolia benefited from the international trade between the East and the West, especially after the conquest of important ports on the Mediterranean and Aegean coasts. Trade relations established with the Latins and the Lusignan Cyprus enabled the exchange of goods. More importantly, these trade relations contributed to an intercourse between cultures, as the ships landed in Anatolian ports not only brought merchandise, but also travelers, artists and pilgrims.98 Foreign artists, who were engaged in Gothic Architecture in Europe, Cyprus or in other Crusader States, could possibly land in one of the ports in Anatolia and travel to Niğde, which was located on the main trade route. Alternatively, the strategic location of Niğde could also bring artists from the east as well.

6.3 Traveling Artists

Foreign architects and artists were employed all through the Middle Ages and they traveled extensively. (Harvey 1966, 116) These traveling artists played an important role in the development of architecture and in the rapid spread of stylistic changes both in Anatolia and Europe. Thus, these artists will be considered in the following

______97 For more information, see (Turan 1958, 139-143) 98 A Genoese ship, for instance, brought Ibn Batuta from Syria to Alaiye. (Heyd 1975, 611)

75 section. In addition, masons’ marks observed on Sungur Bey Mosque, as well as on other buildings in Anatolia, Europe and Cyprus will be addressed, in an attempt to figure out the routes that the masons followed.

6.3.1 Traveling Artists in Anatolia

Christian architects and architects who were later converted to Islam, worked side by side with Muslim architects in Anatolia. Kaloyan al-Qunewi was one of the best known among those Christian architects.99 He worked on the Ilgın Han in 1267-68 and built Gök Medrese in Sivas in 1271. The Greek architect Thyrianus built a mosque near Akşehir in 1222. Moreover, Keluk ibn Abdullah, who was possibly of Armenian origin, built the İnce Minare, the Nalıncı Tomb and the mosque near the gate of Laranda in Konya.100 (Vryonis 1971, 235-236)

The first wave of the Mesopotamian and Syrian artists came to Anatolia in the first half of the 13th century. These artists were mainly from the lands of Zengids and Ayyubids.101 Hence, the typical Zengid decoration observed in some Anatolian Seljuk buildings during the 13th century, were due to these artists. (İnal 1981, 87) Moreover, the migration of Turkomans from Sirderya (Seyhun), Maveraünehir, Harzem, Horasan and Azerbaijan also brought many artists to Anatolia during the 13th and 14th centuries.

An architect from Aleppo, known as Ali b. Raja al-Kattani, worked in the restoration of the entrance gate of the Citadel of Sinop in 1215-16. (İnal 1981, 88) Ahmed bin Bizl ül-Marendi from Iran, worked in İzzeddin Keykavus I’s Hospital (1217) and Tomb (1219) in Sivas. A Syrian architect, Muhammed bin Havlan el-Dımışki from Damascus worked in Konya Alaeddin Mosque and Sultan Han between Konya and Aksaray. Furthermore, Selçuk İsa Bey Mosque (1374-75) was built by Ali ibn Muşaymış el-Dımışki from Damascus. (Sönmez 1989, 214, 220, 347)

______99 Sönmez (1989, 283) referred to a Mevlevi record, which documented Kaluyan ül-Konevi was converted to Islam. 100 According to Sönmez (1989, 270), on the other hand, Kölük bin Abdullah, who built Konya Sahip Ata Complex and Konya İnce Minare Complex, was probably from Konya. 101 Meanwhile, Zengids (1127-1233) ruled in Mesopotamia and Syria, in Mosul, Aleppo and Sinjur. Moreover, Ayyubids ruled in Damascus (1193-1260), Aleppo (1193-1269), Meyafarkin (1200-1260) and Hisn Keyfa (1252- 1524). (İnal 1981, 87)

76 As Büktel (2000, 33) pointed out, traveling artists played a very important role in the development of architecture during the Anatolian Seljuk Period. The employment of foreign architects was an indicator of intercourse between cultures and this tolerance probably resulted in the employment of foreign artists in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque as well.

6.3.2 Traveling Artists in the West

In Europe, masons and carpenters were mainly trained with their fathers or elder relatives and specific family traditions were handled down to the next generations. Nevertheless, apprenticeship began from the late 13th century onwards. Following a seven-year apprenticeship, young craftsman had to work for three years as an “improver”. During these wandering-years, the mason moved from job to job, gaining practical experience at different works, often in foreign countries. (Harvey 1972, 90)

Thus, western artists traveled extensively due to pilgrimage, wandering-years and official business trips. Some English Gothic architects crossed the Channel and found work overseas, thereby gaining the first-hand knowledge of foreign details. (Harvey 1972, 91) In addition, French masters traveled to England, Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Palestine. (Harvey 1966, 123) As it was pointed out during the crusades, masons and architects frequently accompanied major crusades and transmitted Gothic architecture to the Crusader States in the Levant. (Harvey 1972, 155) Hence, as these examples illustrated, European artists usually traveled long distances and it was not unlikely to consider that they came to Anatolia, as well.

6.3.3 Masons’ Marks

Masons’ marks were personal signs, which indicated that a particular mason cut a specific stone, to show his individual responsibility for work done. (Harvey 1966, 117) They were frequently observed in Anatolia, as well as in Europe, between the 12th and 15th centuries. (Çayırdağ 1982, 79; Harvey 1966, 117)

Masons’ marks were repeated in different buildings in Anatolia throughout four

77 centuries. Binan (2001, 128) explained this on the basis of guild organizations, while Sönmez (1989, 12) related them to the stamp tradition in Anatolia.

Nevertheless, their widespread use in Anatolia might also be an indicator of traveling masons. Thus, an investigation of these masons’ marks could shed light on the building activity in Anatolia by determining the masons or masons groups that worked in different buildings during the same period and by finding out the routes that they followed. (Binan 2001, 128, 129)

Gabriel (1962, 39, 43) identified the following 22 different masons’ marks on Sungur Bey Mosque. (Fig. 97) Some of these masons’ marks were also observed in other buildings in Niğde such as Alaeddin Mosque and Hüdavend Hatun Tomb. In addition, some of these marks were repeated on Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi, as follows. (Çam 1988, 295)

Masons marks on Sungur Bey Mosque (Gabriel 1962, 43)

Masons marks on Alaeddin Mosque in Niğde (Gabriel 1962, 43)

Masons marks on Hüdavend Hatun Tomb (Gabriel 1962, 43)

Masons’ Marks on Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi (Çam 1988, 295)

Alaeddin Mosque in Niğde dated from 1223 and it was not possible for the same

78 masons to work in Alaeddin Mosque and Sungur Bey Mosque, as there was more than a century between these two buildings. In this case, it was possible to assume a guild organization as Binan suggested or a family that used the same mark over generations. Nonetheless, Hüdavend Hatun Tomb, dated 1312 was closer to Sungur Bey Mosque in timing and it was possible for the same masons to work in these two buildings.

Moreover, the mark resembling the letter “H” appeared both on Sungur Bey Mosque and on Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi. As the construction dates of these two buildings were close to each other, it is reasonable to assume that the same masons worked in these two buildings. (Çam 1988, 295)

Çayırdağ (1982, 84-91) and Sönmez (1989, 15-18) conducted studies on masons’ marks in Anatolia and some of the masons marks identified in these studies are compiled in Table 1 with the purpose of finding some correlations with Sungur Bey Mosque. (See Table 1) Most of the buildings under the study dated from the 13th century, nevertheless, same masons’ marks were repeated on Sungur Bey Mosque a century later. It was possible to explain this on the basis of guild organizations as Binan suggested, on the stamp tradition as Sönmez emphasized or on the basis of a generation of masons from the same family.

Moreover, Vryonis (1971, 237) attracted attention to the similarity of some marks such as MΠ∆EANKX IBYZ∧XO, with the Greek letters, and he suggested that Greek stonemasons might have been employed as well.

All the same, masons’ marks were frequently observed in Europe, Cyprus and in the Crusader States during the Gothic Period. (Enlart 1987, 90, 179) These marks served as the mason’s “signature” and they were used for accounting purposes, as well. (Mayer 1988, 190) The fully trained stonemason was allowed to use a family mark, which belonged to his father before him, or he was given a personal mark by the lodge. (Harvey 1972, 100) These marks were sometimes subject to change within the lodge to avoid duplication. Unfortunately, a written register of marks did not survive from the Middle Ages and very few marks could be connected to the names

79 of their users. (Harvey 1966, 117)

Masons’ Marks in England (Harvey 1966, 117)

Some of the masons’ marks observed on Sungur Bey Mosque were similar to the Greek letters as Vryonis suggested and some of them also appeared in other buildings in Europe and Cyprus during the 13th and 14th centuries. Thus, present research is not sufficient to draw conclusions and further research and comparisons with Anatolian and western examples are necessary.

6.4 Other Possible Interactions

As it was emphasized in the beginning of the chapter, architectural transmission may take different forms. Political and diplomatic relations, for instance, can sometimes be instrumental in the transmission of an artistic style. The following example illustrates the possibility of other interactions, which might be at work in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque.

In reply to a diplomatic visit to London by the Ilkhanids, an English mission was dispatched in 1291. Following the route of Genoa, Constantinople and Trabzon, English envoys reached Anatolia and passed to Tabriz, via Erzurum. On the way back, they stopped at various “towns of the Saracens and Armenians”. One member of the party was Robert, who was a “Sculptor”. According to Harvey (1972, 131), diaper patterns, which appeared at Canterbury Cathedral, following this embassy, carried a direct “Saracenic inspiration in their geometry”. Harvey (1972, 132) also suggested that it was more than mere coincidence to observe Oriental influence upon English Gothic architecture between 1290 and 1335, when the Ilkhanids cultivated

80 relations with the west. On the other side of the coin, it was equally reasonable to consider a Gothic influence on the architecture of the Ilkhanids during this period.

This example was important in the sense that it illustrated the interaction between the East and the West -or vice-versa- during the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, it also pointed to the possibility of other interactions in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque.

81

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

In the beginning of the 14th century, a turbulent environment prevailed in Anatolia due to the disruption of political unity and stability. The Anatolian Seljuk rule had collapsed and a number of Turkoman Principalities had claimed their independence. Moreover, the Ilkhanids, who carried out the financial administration of the state in the final epoch of the Anatolian Seljuks, had appointed their own governors in Anatolia.

Hence, a new episode had started in Anatolia and Niğde was affected from these new developments as well. Niğde was located on a strategic location concerning the defence of the region and this had made it a significant military stronghold during the Anatolian Seljuk Period. Ilkhanids also perceived the city’s strategic importance and accordingly they accommodated a Mongol tribe near Niğde to protect the passages. (Darkot 1988, 9:254) Sungur Ağa was one of the leaders of this Mongol tribe. Subsequently he became the governor of Niğde and donated the Mosque that was named after him. (Gabriel 1962, 18)

Sungur Bey Mosque was built during the reign of the last Ilkhanid ruler Ebu Said Bahadır Han, who ruled between 1316 and 1335. The Mosque was constructed in the Alaeddin District, which formed the nucleus of the city in those days. The city had begun to grow beyond the city walls during the Ilkhanid Period and accordingly Sungur Bey Mosque was located outside the citadel, near the south gate of the city. This new Mosque donated by the Ilkhanid governor of Niğde, Sungur Ağa, rose with grandeur on the slope of the Alaeddin Hill and it probably served as the Friday Mosque of the city during that period.

82 Sungur Bey Mosque was a traditional Anatolian building in many respects. There was a well-established architectural tradition that was inherited from the Anatolian Seljuks and this former architectural tradition was mainly sustained, particularly in Central Anatolia, during the Principalities Period. Thus, the nearby Alaeddin Mosque probably served as a model for Sungur Bey Mosque. The longitudinal plan of the Mosque, the location of the mahfil section on the north elevation, the location of the portals on the east and north façades and the geometric interlaces observed on its east portal repeated the same schemes on the Alaeddin Mosque.

In addition, its octagonal tomb adjoining the Mosque on the east façade, and its monumental east portal with twin minarets repeated the mosque-tomb and twin minaret schemes that were observed in a number of Anatolian Seljuk and Principalities Period examples. Its east portal in the form of a pointed arched iwan had all the elements of a traditional Anatolian Seljuk portal. Moreover, the construction materials of the Mosque and its architectural decoration on its portals, as well as on its mihrab repeated the Anatolian examples.

Nevertheless, some of the architectural forms observed on the Mosque point to some possible foreign interactions. The ribbed cross vault covering the iwan of the east portal, the geometric arrangements reminiscent of rose windows on the east and north façades, the recessed arches and tympana of the windows on the west façade and in the interior, some clustered piers inside the Mosque and the moulded band over them, seem to diverge from the traditional architecture of Anatolia.

Gabriel, who made the first detailed study on the Mosque in the 1930s, was the first scholar who focused on these foreign forms. Gabriel associated them with Gothic Architecture and he attributed them to Greek workers from Cyprus or Armenian workers from Çukurova. Moreover, Gabriel (1962, 37) also suggested that these Christian workers took advantage of the tax exemption, which was mentioned in one of the inscription panels of the Mosque.

Subsequently, other scholars also repeated the proposition of Gabriel and they considered the “Gothic forms” of the Mosque due to an interaction from Cyprus.

83 However, after Gabriel, most of these scholars did not focus on a possible Armenian influence and they did not question its source either.

Thus, the aim of this thesis was to take a critical look at the sources of these foreign architectural forms, which seemed to diverge from the traditional architecture of Anatolia. In order to achieve this objective, comparisons were made with contemporary examples from Europe, Cyprus, Eastern Crusader States, Armenia and Anatolia. In addition, some possible interactions, which could be influential in the transmission of these foreign elements, were considered as well. The results of this comparative study can be summarized as follows:

1. Most of the foreign forms observed on the Mosque could be associated with the western Gothic examples, however with some important differences. The geometric arrangements on the tympanum of the east portal, for instance, were simplified versions of rose windows that were observed in the West. They were more reminiscent of the geometrical tracery observed in the upper part of the windows in Gothic cathedrals. Moreover, the geometric arrangements of the Mosque also diverged from western examples in the use of some traditional motifs, such as six sided stars, in the compositions. Similarly, the tympana of the windows on the west façade recalled the western Gothic examples with “geometrical tracery”, yet some differences were again observed. The windows of the Mosque were not divided into lights as in the Gothic examples. Moreover, only the second and the third windows, which were decorated with trefoils and circles, resembled these western examples.

2. The Gothic examples in Cyprus basically followed the French schools. (Enlart 1987, 46). Thus, the aforementioned reservations also apply to these Cypriot examples, as well. The similarity of the windows of the Mosque with those of the Bellapais Abbey are evident, however this example was not enough to suggest that the source of the foreign influences on Sungur Bey Mosque was from Cyprus.

3. The very few examples surviving from the Eastern Crusader States do not

84 provide evidence to suggest a common source in Palestine. Although the Crusading Architecture was considered as a fusion of Byzantine, Arab and Western styles (Boase 1967, 103), it was, in general, close to the contemporary French Gothic style of the Lusignan Cyprus. (Runciman 1966, III/383) Thus, the aforementioned reservations are also valid for these Crusader examples.

4. Most of the foreign forms observed on Sungur Bey Mosque can be associated with Armenian Architecture. Nonetheless, the only exception was the geometric arrangements, which were reminiscent of rose windows. Although round windows appeared in Armenian Architecture, they had very simple decoration and they were not partitioned. All the same, the other foreign forms observed on the Mosque were quite similar to the Armenian examples from the 11th century, which even predated the use of these features in western Gothic examples.102

5. The foreign elements observed on Sungur Bey Mosque were exceptional cases in Anatolia, however they were not unique. Some examples from the 13th and 14th centuries, such as Kızıltepe Great Mosque in Mardin, Divriği Hospital in Sivas, Ahi Yusuf Tomb in Antalya, Ahmed Gazi Medresesi in Peçin and Alaaddin Mosque in Korkuteli display similar foreign interactions, as well.103 Scholars have associated these foreign forms with Romanesque or Gothic Architecture, however they have attempted to explain their sources on different grounds. Some scholars have emphasized the interactions with the west, while others consider the interactions with Cyprus or the Eastern Crusader States. Thus, these examples are not particularly helpful in explaining the sources of foreign architectural elements, other than pointing to an intercourse between cultures in the 13th and 14th centuries.

______102 There was documentary evidence of the presence of Armenians in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, who could have carried this information to the West. (Der Manuelian 2001, 7) 103 Furthermore, the façade articulation of Ak Medrese in Niğde and Hüdavendigar Mosque in Bursa also pointed to foreign interactions and they were associated with the western Gothic examples. As the comparisons were based on the foreign architectural elements observed on Sungur Bey Mosque, these examples were not considered in detail in the thesis. Nevertheless, the example of Ak Medrese was particularly important in the sense that it showed the continuation of a foreign interaction in Niğde in the 15th century.

85 6. There were a number of possible interactions, which could be instrumental on the transmission of these foreign forms in the case of Sungur Bey Mosque. Crusades, trade relations and traveling artists were considered in this study, however the possibility of other interactions was also highlighted. It was not possible to conclude on the medium of transmission, however the examples revealed the potential of interactions from the south, as well as from the east or the west.

In conclusion, the sources of the foreign influences on Sungur Bey Mosque are as controversial as the date and the original plan of the Mosque. However, they cannot be simply associated with Gothic Architecture, as most of these architectural forms are also observed in Armenian Architecture, even at an earlier date. In addition, these foreign elements are shaped in a new synthesis in Sungur Bey Mosque and accordingly they are not just imported forms. The traditional, as well as new elements are blended together in harmony. Moreover, the foreign architectural elements of the Mosque point to an intercourse between cultures, even in a very turbulent environment. Thus, Sungur Bey Mosque reflects not only the experimental and eclectic character of the Period, but also the intercourse between cultures in the 14th century Anatolia.

86

FIGURES

87

Figure 1 Map of Anatolia in the Principalities Period (1299-1300) (Kolay 1999, 4)

Figure 2 Sungur Bey Mosque- General View from South-west (D. Esin)

88

Figure 3 Plan of Niğde (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 1)

Distribution of Buildings

1. Citadel 21. Fesleğen Mosque 2. Inner citadel and Clock Tower 22. Ak Medrese 3. Murat Paşa Mosque and Tomb 23. Esen Bey Dergah 4. Murat Paşa Han 24. Hüdavend Hatun Tomb 5. Murat Paşa Hamam 25. Gündoğdu Tomb 6. Murat Paşa Fountain 26. Kesikbaş Tomb 7. Alaeddin Mosque 27. Şah Süleyman Tomb 8. Sungur Bey Mosque and Tomb 28. Esen Bey Tomb 9. Darü’z-zikr Masjid 29. Dört Ayak Tomb 10. Eskiciler Masjid 30. Şeref Ali Tomb 11. Şah Masjid 31. Sarı Han 12. Hanım Mosque 32. Sokullu Mehmet Paşa Bedesten 13. Kıble Masjid and Fountain 33. Çarşı Hamam 14. Dışarı (Çelebi Hüsameddin) Mosque 34. Hatıroğlu Fountain 15. Kığılı (Pazar) Mosque 35. Sır Ali Fountain 16. Sır Ali Mosque and Tomb 36. Cullaz Fountain 17. Rahmaniye Mosque 37. Nalbantlar Fountain 18. Cullaz Masjid 38. Mühürcü Fountain 19. Dört Ayak Mosque and Fountain 39. Kaymakam Fountain 20. Kemali Ümmi Masjid and Tomb

89

Figure 4 Sungur Bey Mosque- Mutilated Inscription Panel on the East Portal (D. Esin)

Figure 5 Sungur Bey Mosque-Inscription Panel Figure 6 Sungur Bey Mosque- Inscription on the Doorframe of the East Portal (D. Esin) Panel on the Base of the North Minaret (D. Esin)

90

Figure 7 Inscription Panels on the Left of the Original Minber of Sungur Bey Mosque in Dışarı Mosque (D. Esin)

Figure 8 Inscription Panels on the Right of the Original Minber of Sungur Bey Mosque in Dışarı Mosque (D. Esin)

91

Figure 9 Sungur Bey Mosque- Current Figure 10 Sungur Bey Mosque - Plan (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 23) Restitution by Gabriel (1962, Fig. 14)

Figure 11 Sungur Bey Mosque- Restitution Figure 12 Sungur Bey Mosque - by Gabriel (1962, Fig. 17) Restitution by Özkarcı (2001, Drawing 25)

92

Figure 13 Sungur Bey Mosque-East Façade (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 27)

Figure 14 Sungur Bey Mosque- East Façade (A. Durukan Archive)

93

Figure 15 Sungur Bey Mosque- North Façade (A. Durukan Archive)

Figure 16 Sungur Bey Mosque- Detail from the North Façade (A. Durukan Archive)

94

Figure 17 Sungur Bey Mosque- West Façade (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 28)

Figure 18 Sungur Bey Mosque- West Façade (D. Esin)

95

Figure 19 Sungur Bey Mosque- South Façade (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 29)

Figure 20 Sungur Bey Mosque- Projecting Mass of the Mihrab Niche on South Façade (D. Esin)

96

Figure 21 Sungur Bey Mosque- Timber Columns in the Interior Covered by Stucco (A. Durukan Archive)

Figure 22 Sungur Bey Mosque- An Oval Column and a Cusped Pier on the East Elevation (A. Durukan Archive)

97

Figure 23 Sungur Bey Mosque- Plan of the Mahfil Section (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 24)

Figure 24 Sungur Bey Mosque- Central Section of the Mahfil (A. Durukan Archive)

98

Figure 25 Sungur Bey Mosque- Windows on the West Elevation (A. Durukan Archive)

Figure 26 Sungur Bey Mosque- Window Converted to the Door of the Tomb on the East Elevation (D. Esin)

99

Figure 27 Sungur Bey Mosque- Ribbed Cross Figure 28 Sungur Bey Mosque- Detail from Vault of the East Portal (D. Esin) the Side Walls of the East Portal (D. Esin)

Figure 29 Sungur Bey Mosque- Stylized Animal Figures on the Side Walls of the East Portal (A. Durukan Archive)

100

Figure 30 Sungur Bey Mosque- Stylized Animal Figures by Öney and Otto-Dorn (Özkarcı 2001, Drawings 37-39)

Figure 31 Sungur Bey Mosque- Side Niches of the East Portal (D. Esin)

101

Figure 32 Sungur Bey Mosque -Wooden Figure 33 Sungur Bey Mosque- North Portal Door of the East Portal (D. Esin) (A. Durukan Archive)

Figure 34 Sungur Bey Mosque- Detail from the Decoration of the North Portal (D. Esin)

102

Figure 35 Sungur Bey Mosque- Double-headed Eagle on the Keystone of the North Portal (D. Esin)

Figure 36 Sungur Bey Mosque- Wooden Figure 37 Sungur Bey Mosque- Wooden Door of the North Portal (D. Esin) Door of the North Portal by Mülayim (Özkarcı 2001, Drawing 42)

103

Figure 38 Sungur Bey Mosque- Mihrab (Bakırer 1976, Fig. 69)

Figure 39 Sungur Bey Mosque- Mihrab (A. Durukan Archive)

104

Figure 40 Sungur Bey Mosque- Stone Balustrate on the East of the Mahfil Section (D. Esin)

a b Figure 41 Alaeddin Mosque in Niğde- a East Portal (Özkarcı 2001, Fig. 67) b- North Portal (D. Esin)

105

Figure 42 Ak Medrese in Niğde- Portal (Blair and Bloom 1995, Fig. 179)

Figure 43 Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese - Figure 44 Erzurum Çifte Minareli Medrese- Frontal Detail from Portal Panel on the Right of Portal (Öney 1978, Fig. 10) (Öney 1978, Fig. 34)

106

Figure 45 Amasya Bimarhane- Portal Before Restoration (Kuban 2002, 144)

Figure 46 Amasya Bimarhane- Detail from Figure 47 Sivas Gök Medrese- Clustered Portal (Ögel 1987, Fig. 116a) Animal Figures on the Portal (Kuban 2002, 317)

107

Figure 48 Hüdavend Hatun Tomb in Niğde Figure 49 Hüdavend Hatun Tomb- Double (D. Esin) Headed Eagle (D. Esin)

Figure 50 Church of Aght’amar- Figurative Decoration on the South-west (A. Durukan Archive)

108

Figure 51 Sungur Bey Mosque- Ribbed Cross Vault of the East Portal (D. Esin)

Figure 52 Sungur Bey Mosque- Profile Figure 53 Template for the Transverse Ribs of the Cross-Vault (Gabriel 1962, Fig. 20) of Rheims Cathedral (Honnecourt 1959, Plate 44)

a b Figure 54 Profile of Vaulting Arches in Cyprus: a- New Mosque in Nicosia; b- Cathedral Church of St. George of the Greeks in Famagusta (Enlart 1987, 151 Fig. 91; 254 Fig. 198)

109

Figure 55 Great Mosque of Cordoba- Intersecting Ribs (Brend 1991, Fig. 28)

Figure 56 Church of the Apostles at Ani- Figure 57 Durham Cathedral- Rib Vaults Intersecting Cross Aches of the Porch (Domke 1959, 4) (Khatchatrian 1972, Fig. 57)

110

Figure 58 Castle of Krak des Chevaliers- Figure 59 Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia- Loggia Outside Banqueting Hall Ribbed Vaults (Enlart 1987, Plate X) (Fedden 1957, 73)

Figure 60 Sungur Bey Mosque- Restitution of the Geometric Arrangement on the Tympanum of the East Portal (Bakırer 1994, 368, Fig. 4)

111

Figure 61 Sungur Bey Mosque- Geometric Arrangement Above the North Portal (D. Esin)

Figure 62 Saint-Etienne, Beauvais- Figure 63 St. Denis- First Rose Window Predecessor of the Rose Window (Cowen 1992, 49, Fig. 26) (Cowen 1992, 49, Fig. 25)

112

a b c d

Figure 64 Examples of Rose Windows in Europe: a- Notre Dame Paris- West Front (Branner 1967, Fig. 38; b- Chartres-West Front (Domke 1959, 6); c- Laon-North Transept (Cowen 1992, 53 Fig. 30); d- Bourges Cathedral- Portal of Christ (Domke 1959, 114)

a b Figure 65 Examples of Rose Windows in Cyprus a- Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Famagusta (Enlart 1987, Plate XXXIII); b- Church of St. Mary of the Augustinians in Nicosia (Enlart 1987, 149 Fig. 86)

Figure 66 Alaaddin Mosque in Korkuteli- Rose Window Above the Portal (D. Esin)

113

Figure 67 Süleyman Paşa Medresesi at İznik- Figure 68 Hatuniye Mosque at Tokat- Round Windows (Ünal 2000, 135) Round Window on the Portal (Çakmak 2001, 353, Fig. 106)

Figure 69 Cathedral of Ani-Round Window (S. Güven Archive)

114

Figure 70 Sungur Bey Mosque- Recessed Figure 71 Sungur Bey Mosque- Recessed Arch and Tympanum of the First Window Arch and Tympanum of the Second Window on the South of the West Façade (D. Esin) on the South of the West Façade (D. Esin)

Figure 72 Sungur Bey Mosque- Recessed Figure 73 Sungur Bey Mosque- Recessed Arch and Tympanum of the Third Window Arch and Tympanum of the Fourth Window on the South of the West Façade (D. Esin) on the South of the West Façade (D. Esin)

115

a b Figure 74 Some Gothic Doorways in Cyprus; a- Church of St. Catherine in Nicosia (Enlart 1987, Plate XV) b-Church of St. Nicholas in Nicosia (Enlart 1987, VIX)

Figure 75 Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia- Recessed Arches of the Windows on the South Façade (Enlart 1987, Plate VII)

116

Figure 76 Bellapais Abbey in Cyprus- Recessed Figure 77 Church of Aght’amar- Windows Arch at the Refectory (Enlart 1987, Plate XXV) with Round Arched Mouldings (İpşiroğlu 2003, Fig. 4)

Figure 78 Kızıltepe Great Mosque-Detail Figure 79 Ahi Yusuf Tomb in Antalya- from the Portal by Gabriel (Altun 1978, Recessed Arch of One of the Windows Fig. 107) (Riefstahl 1931, Fig. 91)

117

Figure 80 Divriği Hospital- Portal (A. Durukan Figure 81 Ahmed Gazi Medresesi at Peçin- Archive) Portal (A. Durukan Archive)

Figure 82 Sungur Bey Mosque-Tympanum Figure 83 Sungur Bey Mosque- Geometric of the First Window on the South of the Arrangement on the Window Converted to West Façade (Gabriel 1962, Plan XII) the Door of the Tomb (D. Esin)

118

Figure 84 Amiens Cathedral- Windows in the Choir (Grodecki 1986, 64 Fig. 75)

Figure 85 Salisbury Cathedral –Tracery of Arches at Cloisters (Stewart 1954,129)

119

Figure 86 Bellapais Abbey in Cyprus- Tracery of Arches at Cloisters (Enlart 1987, XXIII)

Figure 87 Damascus Great Mosque- Marble Window Grilles of the Western Vestibule (Creswell 1958, Fig. 16)

Figure 88 İlyas Bey Mosque at Balat - Marble Window Grilles at North Façade (Durukan 1988, 32 Fig. 9)

120

Figure 89 Sungur Bey Mosque- Figure 90 Sungur Bey Mosque- Profile of Moulded Band (Gabriel 1962, Fig. 23) Clustered Piers (Özkarcı 2001, Fig. 41)

Figure 91Sungur Bey Mosque- A Clustered Figure 92 Cathedral of Ani- Clustered Piers Pier (D. Esin) (S. Güven Archive)

Figure 93 Sultan Han Between Konya Aksaray- Clustered Columns as Buttresses (Kuban 1999, 243)

121

Figure 94 Divriği Great Mosque- Clustered Corner Columns of the North Portal (Kuban 1999, 101, 122)

Figure 95 Routes Followed by the Crusaders (Hamilton 1965, 303)

122

Figure 96 Chief Caravan Routes in Anatolia (Önge 2004, Fig. 5.1)

Figure 97 Sungur Bey Mosque- Masons’ Marks (D. Esin)

123 TABLE

MASONS’ MARKS IN ANATOLIA, EUROPE AND CYPRUS (13TH –14TH CENTURIES)104

Masons’ Mark └ ↓ ┐ ↑

┘ Architect ∆ ←

Building

Niğde Sungur Bey N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

124 Mosque 1335-6 Çifte Medrese Kayseri N/A √ √ √ √ √ 1205 Gıyasiye Medresesi- N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Kayseri 1205-6 Yoğun Burç- Kayseri Architect √ √ √ √* √ √ √ √ 1210-20 Yahya **

* According to Sönmez ** According to Çayırdağ

______104 This table has been compiled from the following sources: (Çayırdağ 1982, 84-89; Sönmez 1989, 15-19; Harvey 1966, 117; Enlart 1987, 90, 179, 453)

TABLE (Continued)

Masons’ Mark └ ↓ ┐ ↑

┘ Architect ∆ ←

Building

Evdir Han 1215-19 N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √* Hekim Han btw. Sivas N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

125 Malatya 1218 Niğde Alaaddin Sıddık bin √ √ √ √* Mosque 1223 Mahmut - Gazi bin Mahmut Aksaray Sultan Han Muhammed √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 1229 bin Havlan el-Dımışki Kayseri Sultan Han N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 1230-36

* According to Sönmez ** According to Çayırdağ

TABLE (Continued)

Masons’ Mark └ ↓ ┐ ↑

┘ Architect ∆ ←

Building

Alay Han btw. ….el-Hılati √* √ √ √ Aksaray-Nevşehir ** 1219-36105 126 Alara Han btw. N/A √ √ √ √ Antalya-Konya 1232 Avanos Sarı Han 1236- N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √* √* 38106 Zazadin Han btw. Sadeddin √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Konya-Aksaray 1237 Köpek Hunat Hatun Mosque- N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Kayseri 1238

______105 According to Sönmez, completed in 1192.

106 According to Sönmez, built between 1246-1259.

TABLE (Continued)

Masons’ Mark └ ↓ ┐ ↑

┘ Architect ∆ ←

Building

Hunat Hatun Tomb- N/A √ √ √ √ √* √ Kayseri ** ** ** ** 127 Karatay Han btw. N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Kayseri-Malatya 1219- ** 40107 Kırkgöz Han btw. N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √* Antalya-Isparta 1236- 46 Horozlu Han btw. N/A √ √ √ √ √* √ √* Konya-Ankara 1246-49 Hacı Kılınç Mosque N/A √ √ √ √ √ Kayseri 1249-50

______107 According to Sönmez, completed in 1240-1241.

TABLE (Continued)

Masons’ Mark └ ↓ ┐ ↑

┘ Architect ∆ ←

Building

Turumtay Tomb N/A √ √ √ √ √ Amasya 1278 Niğde Hüdavend Hatun N/A √ √* √ √ 128 Tomb 1312 Köşk Medrese Kayseri ?Kaluyan √ √ √ 1339 bin Lokman Gündoğdu Tomb Niğde N/A √ √ 1344 Monuments in Ahlat N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 13th-14th century ** English Masons’ Marks N/A √ √ √ √ in 13th cent.

* According to Sönmez ** According to Çayırdağ

TABLE (Continued)

Masons’ Mark └ ↓ ┐ ↑

┘ Architect ∆ ←

Building

English Masons’ Marks N/A √ √ th 129 in 14 cent. Cathedral of St. Sophia, N/A √ √ √ √ √ Nicosia in Cyprus Bellapais Abbey in N/A √ √ √ Cyprus Castle and walls of N/A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Famagusta

REFERENCES

Akmaydalı, Hüdavendigar. (1985).“Niğde Sungur Bey Camii”. Vakıflar Dergisi. vol. XIX. p.147-178.

Altun, Ara. (1978). Anadolu’da Artuklu Devri Türk Mimarisi’nin Gelişmesi. İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Anonim. (1982). “Niğde” maddesi. Yurt Ansiklopedisi. vol. VIII. p.6146-6216.

Arık, O. M. (1980). “Turkish Architecture in Asia Minor in the Period of the Turkish Emirates”. The Art and Architecture of Turkey. (ed. E. Akurgal). New York: Rizzoli. p. 111-136.

Arseven, C. E. (1955). Türk Sanatı Tarihi-Menşeinden Bugüne Kadar Mimari, Heykel, Resim, Süsleme ve Tezyini Sanatlar. İstanbul: MEB.

Aslanapa, Oktay. (1971). Turkish Art and Architecture. New York, Washington: Praeger Publishers.

______. (1977).Yüzyıllar Boyunca Türk Sanatı (14. Yüzyıl). Ankara: MEB.

______. (1984). Türk Sanatı. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.

______. (1991). Anadolu’da İlk Türk Mimarisi. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi.

______. (1993). “Beylikler Devri Mimarisi”. Başlangıcından Bugüne Türk Sanatı. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları. p.163-184.

Bakırer, Ömür. (1976). Onüç ve Ondördüncü Yüzyıllarda Anadolu Mihrabları. Ankara:TTK.

______. (1995). “Anadolu Selçuklu Mimarisinde Yapı Malzemeleri.” IV. Milli Selçuklu Kültür ve Medeniyeti Semineri Bildirileri, 25-26 Nisan 1994. Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Selçuklu Araştırmaları Merkezi. p. 165-181.

______. (1998). “Ankara Kalesi Duvarları Üzerindeki Belge ve Bilgiler”. Tarih İçinde Ankara II. Ankara: METU. p.173-202.

______. (2000). “Niğde Sungurbey Camisi’nin Taçkapı ve Pencereleri için Bazı Düşünceler”. Celal Esad Arseven Anısına Sanat Tarihi Semineri 7-10

130 Mart 1994, Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler. (ed. B. Mahir). İstanbul: Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi. p. 73-84. fig. 368:1-4.

Binan, D. Ulusoy. (2001). “Ortaçağ Anadolu Türk Mimarisinde Taşçı İşaretleri ve Koruma Sorunları”. Taç Vakfı’nın 25 Yılı Anı Kitabı Türkiye’de Risk Altındaki Doğal ve Kültürel Miras. İstanbul: Türkiye Anıt Çevre Turizm Değerlerini Koruma Vakfı. p. 119-136.

Blair, Sheila, J. M. Bloom. (1995). The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Boase, T.S.R. (1967). Castles and Churches of the Crusading Kingdom. London: Oxford University Press.

Branner, Robert. (1967). Gothic Architecture. New York: George Braziller.

Brend, Barbara. (1991). Islamic Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Buxton, D. R. (1934). Russian Medieval Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Büktel, Yılmaz. (2000). Türk Sanat Tarihi -Orta Asya’dan Anadolu’ya Türk Mimarisi. Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü.

Cantay, Gönül. (2002). “Anadolu Türk Beylikleri Sanatı”. Türkler Ansiklopedisi. (ed. H. C. Güzel et. al.) Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. vol. VIII. p.15-29.

Cowen, Painton. (1992). Rose Windows. London: Thames and Hudson.

Crane, Howard. (2002). “Anadolu Beylik Döneminde Mimari ve Himaye”. Türkler Ansiklopedisi. (ed. H. C. Güzel et. al.) Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. vol. VIII. p.30-37.

Creswell, K.A.C. (1958). A Short Account Of Early Muslim Architecture. Beirut: Librairie Du Liban.

Çakmak, Şakir. (2001). Erken Dönem Osmanlı Mimarisinde Taçkapılar (1300- 1500). Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Çam, Nusret. (1988).“Erzurum’daki Yakutiye Medresesi ile İlgili Bazı Mülahazalar” Vakıflar Dergisi. vol. XX. p. 289-310.

Çayırdağ, Mehmet. (1982). “Kayseri’de Selçuklu ve Beylikler Devri Binalarında Bulunan Taşçı İşaretleri.” Türk Etnografya Dergisi. vol. XVII. p. 79-108.

Darkot, Besim. (1988). “Niğde” maddesi. İslam Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul. vol. IX. p. 253-256.

131 Delilbaşı, Melek. (1987). “Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler Döneminde Batı ile Ticari İlişkilere Genel bir Bakış.” Tarihte Türk Devletleri II. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi. p. 481-489.

Demiriz, Yıldız. (1979). Osmanlı Mimarisinde Süsleme-Erken Devir (1300-1453). İstanbul:Kültür Bakanlığı.

De Honnecourt, Villard. (1959). The Sketchbook Of Villard De Honnecourt. (ed. T. Bowie). Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.

Der Manuelian, Lucy. (2001). “Ani: The Fabled Capital of Armenia.” Anı World Architectural Heritage of a Medieval Armenian Capital. (ed. S. P. Cowe). Peeters, Leuven Sterling: University of Pennsylvania, Armenian Texts and Studies. p. 1-11.

Der Nersessian, Sirarpie. (1945). Armenia and the Byzantine Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

______. (1965). Aght’amar Church of Holy Cross. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Diez, Ernst, Aslanapa, Oktay and Koman, M. M. (1950). Karaman Devri Sanatı. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi.

Domke, Helmut. (1959). Buildings of Europe: Gothic Europe. (ed. H. Busch and B. Lohse). London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.

Donabedian, Patrick. (2001). “The Architect Trdat.” Anı World Architectural Heritage of a Medieval Armenian Capital. (ed. S. P. Cowe). Peeters, Leuven Sterling: University of Pennsylvania, Armenian Texts and Studies. p. 39-67.

Dunn, Ross E. (1986). The Adventures of Ibn Battuta: A Muslim Traveler of the 14th Century. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Durukan, Aynur. (1988). Balat, İlyas Bey Camii. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Enlart, Camille. (1987). Gothic Art and the Renaissance in Cyprus. (ed. and trans. D. Hunt). London: Trigraph.

Erken, Sabih. (1972). Türkiye’de Vakıf Abideler ve Eski Eserler I. Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları.

Ethem, Halil. (1936). Niğde Kılavuzu. İstanbul.

Evliya Çelebi. (1970). Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi. vol. V. (trans. Z. Danışman). İstanbul: Zuhuri Danışman Yayınevi.

132 Fedden, Robin, John Thomson. (1957). Crusader Castles. London: John Murray Publishers Ltd.

Fleming John, Hugh Honour, Nikolaus Pevsner. (1975). A Dictionary of Architecture. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Frankl, Paul. (1960). The Gothic: Literary Sources and Interpretations through Eight Centuries. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

______. (1962). Gothic Architecture. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Furber, Chapin E. (1969). “The Kingdom of Cyprus, (1191-1291)”. A History of the Crusades: The Later Crusades 1189-1311. vol. II (ed. K. Setton). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. p. 599-629.

Gabashvili, Manana. (2002). “İlhanlı Devleti’nin Uluslararası Ticaret Politikası ve Halefi Olan Türk Olan Devletler”. Türkler Ansiklopedisi. (ed. H. C. Güzel et. al.) Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. vol. VIII. p.386-393.

Gabriel, Albert. (1931). Monuments Turcs d’Anatolie. Paris: E. de Boccard.

______. (1962). Niğde Türk Anıtları. (trans. A. A. Tütenk). Ankara: Bengi Matbaası.

Goodwin, Godfrey. (1971). A History of Ottoman Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.

Göde, Kemal. (1994). Eratnalılar (1327-1381). Ankara:TTK.

Görür, Muhammet. (2002). “Beylikler Dönemi Yapılarında Taş Süslemede Görülen Geçme Geometrik Kompozisyonlar”. Ortaçağ’da Anadolu. Ankara: Hacettepe University, Department of History of Art. p. 269-290.

Güven, Suna. (1999). “Lusignan Kings and Cathedrals in Medieval Cyprus”. Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran. (ed. Ç. Kafescioğlu and L. Thys-Şenocak). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. p. 27-35.

Grodecki, Louis. (1986). Gothic Architecture. London: Faber.

Hamilton, Franklin. (1965). The Crusades. USA: The Dial Press.

Harvey, John. (1966). “The Mason’s Skill.” The Flowering of the Middle Ages. (ed. J. Evans). London: Thames and Hudson. p. 81-132.

______. (1972). The Mediaeval Architect. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Heyd, Wilhelm. (1975). Yakın-Doğu Ticaret Tarihi. (trans. E. Z. Karal). Ankara: TTK.

133 İbn Batuta. (1989). İbn Batuta Seyahatnamesi’nden Seçmeler. (ed. İ. Parmaksızoğlu). İstanbul: MEB.

İnal, Güner. (1981). “Orta Çağlarda Anadolu’da Çalışan Suriye ve Mezopotamyalı Sanatçılar.” Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı XI. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi. p. 83-94.

İpşiroğlu, M. Ş. (2003). Ahtamar Kilisesi: Işıkla Canlanan Duvarlar. (trans. A. Yalınız). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Kennedy, Hugh. (1994). Crusader Castles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Khatchatrian, A. (1972). “Armenian Architecture”. Monuments of Armenian Architecture. Beirut: Hamazkaine. p. 1-78.

Koca, Salim. (2002). “Anadolu Türk Beylikleri”. Türkler Ansiklopedisi. (ed. H. C. Güzel et. al.). Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. vol. VI. p. 703-755.

Konyalı, İ. H. (1974). Abideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Niğde Aksaray Tarihi. vol. I, II. İstanbul: Fatih Yayınevi.

Krautheimer, Richard. (1986). Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Kuban, Doğan. (1999). Divriği Mucizesi: Selçuklular Çağında İslam Bezeme Sanatı Üzerine Bir Deneme. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Kuran, Aptullah. (1980). “Anatolian-Seljuk Architecture.” The Art and Architecture of Turkey. (ed. E. Akurgal). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 80-110.

Lilie, R. J. (1999). “The Crusaders Between Orient and Occident: Success and Failure”. Uluslararası Haçlı Seferleri Sempozyumu, 23-25 June, 1997. Ankara: TTK. p. 77-82.

Lucas, Paul. (1712). Deuxieme Voyage. Paris.

Mango, Cyrill. (1978). Byzantine Architecture. Milan: Electra Editrice.

Marancı, Christina. (2003). “The Architect Trdat: Building Practices and Cross- Cultural Exchange in Byzantium and Armenia”. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. vol. 62/3. p. 294-305.

Mayer, H. E. (1998). The Crusades. (second edition) (trans. J. Gillingham) New York: Oxford University Press.

Mülayim, Selçuk. (1982). “Geometrik Kompozisyonların Çözümlenmesine Bir Yaklaşım”. Arkeoloji -Sanat Tarihi Dergisi. vol. I. p. 54-61.

134 ______. (1990). “Selçuklu Geometrik Süslemeleri”. Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi. III/9. p. 47-53.

Newhall, R. A. (1963). The Crusades. (revised edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.

Oral, Z. M. (1962). “Anadolu’da Sanat Değeri Olan Ahşap Minberler.” Vakıflar Dergisi. vol. V. p. 23-78.

______. (1967). “Harput Ulu Cami Duvarındaki Vergi Kitabesi”. VI. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Bildiriler 1961, IX. Ankara: TTK. p. 140-145.

Otto-Dorn, K. (1963). “Darstellungen des Turco-Chinesischen Tierzyklus in der Islamischen Kunst”. Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte Asiens, In Memoriam Ernst Diez. İstanbul. p. 131-165.

Öney, Gönül. (1967). “Niğde Hüdavend Hatun Türbesi Figürlü Kabartmaları.” Belleten XXXI/122. p.143-167.

______. (1968). “Anadolu Selçuklu Sanatında Balık Figürü”. Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı II. p. 142-159.

______. (1969). “Anadolu Selçuklu Sanatında Ejder Figürleri” Belleten, XXXIII/130. p. 171-192.

______. (1972). “Anadolu Selçuklu Mimarisinde Avcı Kuşlar, Tek ve Çift Başlı Kartal”. Malazgirt Armağanı. Ankara. p. 139-172.

______. (1980). “Architectural Decoration and the Minor Arts.” The Art and Architecture of Turkey. (ed. E. Akurgal). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 170-207.

______. (1989). Beylikler Devri Sanatı, XIV.-VX: Yüzyıl (1300-1453). Ankara:TTK.

______. (1992). Anadolu Selçuklu Mimari Süslemesi ve El Sanatları. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.

______. (2000). “Beylikler ve Erken Osmanlı Sanatına, Sosyal Yaşantısına Genel Bakış”. Akdeniz’de İslam Sanatı: Erken Osmanlı Sanatı Beyliklerin Mirası. İzmir: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. p. 12-33.

Önge, Mustafa. (2004). Restoration of Zazadin Han: A 13th Century Seljukid Caravanserai Near Konya. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Ankara: METU, Department of Architecture.

Özkarcı, Mehmet. (2001). Niğde’de Türk Mimarisi. Ankara: TTK.

135 Peker, A. U. (1998). “Ortaçağ Mimarisinde Anlam.” Arkeoloji ve Sanat. vol. 85. p. 29-38.

Phillips, Jonathan. (1995). “The Latin East 1098-1291”. The Oxford Illustrated History of The Crusades. (ed. J. Riley-Smith). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 112-140.

Pope, A. U. (1965). Persian Architecture: The Triumph of Form and Color. New York: George Braziller.

Pringle, Denys. (1993). The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus I, A-K. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Riefstahl, R. M. (1931). Turkish Architecture in Southwestern Anatolia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Runciman, Steven. (1966). A History of the Crusades: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades. Vol III. London: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, T. A. (1987). Eastern Turkey: An Architectural and Archaeological Survey. vol. I. London: The Pindar Press.

Smith, J. R. (1995). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sönmez, Zeki. (1989). Başlangıcından 16. Yüzyıla Kadar Anadolu Türk-İslam Mimarisinde Sanatçılar. Ankara: TTK.

Sözen, Metin. (1965). “Oba Pazarı Çevresi ve Oba Medresesi.” Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı 1964-65. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi. p. 143-154.

______. (1970). Anadolu Medreseleri, Selçuklular ve Beylikler Devri. İstanbul: İTÜ Faculty of Architecture.

______, et. al. (1975). Türk Mimarisinin Gelişimi ve Mimar Sinan. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.

______. (1980). The Art and Architecture of Turkey. (ed. E. Akurgal). New York: Rizzoli.

______. (1987). The Evolution of Turkish Art and Architecture. (ed. İ. Akşit). İstanbul: Haşet Kitabevi.

Stewart, Cecil. (1954). Simpson’s History of Architectural Development vol. II: Early Christian, Byzantine and Romanesque Architecture. New York: David McKay Company Inc.

136 ______. (1961). Simpson’s History of Architectural Development vol. III: Gothic Architecture. New York: David McKay Company Inc.

Strzygowski, J (1923). Origin of Christian Church Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tanyeli, Uğur. (1987). Anadolu Türk Kentinde Fiziksel Yapının Evrim Süreci (XI.- XV: Yüzyıl). İstanbul: İTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

______. (1993). “Batılılaşma Dönemi Öncesinin Türk Mimarlığında Batı Etkileri (14.-17. Yüzyıl)”. Türk Kültüründe Sanat ve Mimari-Klasik Dönem Sanatı ve Mimarlığı Üzerine Denemeler. (ed. M. Saçlıoğlu and G. Tanyeli). İstanbul. p.157-188.

Texier, Charles. (2002). Küçük Asya Coğrafyası, Tarihi ve Arkeolojisi. (trans. A. Suat). vol.III. Ankara: Enformasyon ve Dokümantasyon Hizmetleri Vakfı.

Tuncer, O. C. (1986). Anadolu Selçuklu Mimarisi ve Moğollar. Ankara.

Turan, Osman. (1958). Türkiye Selçukluları Hakkında Resmi Vesikalar. Ankara: TTK.

______. (1971). Selçuklular Zamanında Türkiye: Siyasi Tarih-Alp Arslan’dan Osman Gazi’ye (1071-1318). İstanbul: Turan Neşriyat Yurdu.

Tütenk, A. A. (1967). “Niğde’nin Tarih Durumu”. Niğde İl Yıllığı. Ankara: Ajans Türk Matbaası. p. 65-89.

______. (1972). “Niğde’de Sungur Bey Camii Doğu Duvarında Farsça Pir Ahmet ve Kasım Hanlarla Sungur Beyle İlgili İki Kitabe”. VII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, 25-29 Eylül 1970, Bildiriler, vol I. Ankara: TTK. p. 402-404.

Uzunçarşılı, İ. H. (1964). “Eretna” maddesi. İslam Ansiklopedisi. vol. IV. p. 309- 310.

Ünal, R. H. (1982). Osmanlı Öncesi Anadolu-Türk Mimarisinde Taçkapılar. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi.

______. (1989). Çifte Minareli Medrese (Erzurum). Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

______. (1993). Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

______. (2000). “Güzergah I Sahillerin Sultanı: Ahmed Gazi Medresesi”. Akdeniz’de İslam Sanatı: Erken Osmanlı Sanatı Beyliklerin Mirası. İzmir: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. p. 43-44.

137 Vryonis, Speros. (1971). The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. London: University of California Press.

Watson, Katherine. (1989). French Romanesque and Islam. vol. I-II. Oxford: BAR International Series.

Yavuz, A. T. (1983). Anadolu Selçuklu Mimarisinde Tonoz ve Kemer. Ankara: Kelaynak Matbaası.

Zachariadou, E. A. (1983). Trade and Crusade: Venetian Crete and the Emirates of Menteshe and Aydın (1300-1415). Venice: Library of the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies.

138

APPENDIX

IMPORTANT DATES IN CRUSADING HISTORY108

1095 Urban II preaches the crusade at the Council of Clermont. 1096-1102 The First Crusade 1096-7 First crusade reaches Constantinople. 1097 Battle of Dorylaeum. 1097-1098 Siege of Antioch. 1098 Baldwin of Boulogne takes control of Edessa. 1099 Capture of Jerusalem by Crusaders. 1101 Final wave of armies of the First Crusade defeated by the Turks in Asia Minor. 1107-8 Crusade of Bohemond of Taranto. 1108 Bohemond surrenders to the Greeks. 1109 Capture of Tripoli. 1144 Catalan Crusade to the Balearic Islands. 1120-5 Crusade of Pope Calixtus II to the East and in Spain. 1124 Capture of Tyre by Crusaders. 1129 Crusaders attack Damascus. 1139-40 Crusade to the East. 1144 Zengi captures Edessa. 1147-9 Second Crusade led by the Emperor Conrad III and Lois VII of France. 1148 Withdrawal of the Crusaders from the siege of Damascus. 1149 Consecration of the new church of the Holy Sepulchre. 1153 Crusade in Spain.

______108 The following chronology of events till 15th century is based on the table by T.S.R. Boase (1967, X-XI) and Jonathan Riley-Smith (1995, 392-400).

139 1153 Capture of Ascalon. 1154 Damascus submits to Nur-ad-din. 1155 Crusading alliance with Manuel Comnenus. 1157-8 Crusade in Spain. 1163-69 Campaigns against Egypt. 1169 Completion of the redecoration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. 1169 Saladin occupies Cairo for Nur-ad-Din. 1171 Crusade in the Baltic region. 1174 Saladin takes over Damascus. 1175 Crusade in Spain. 1183 Aleppo submits to Saladin. 1186 Mosul submits to Saladin. 1187 Defeat of crusading army by Saladin at Hattin. 1187 Jerusalem surrenders to Saladin. 1188 Saladin’s northern campaign: capture of Saone and of Kerak. 1189-92 The Third Crusade. 1189 Guy of Lusignan begins siege of Acre. 1191 Richard I of England takes Cyprus. 1191 Arrivals of Philip II of France and Richard Coeur-de-Lion at Acre. 1192 Guy of Lusignan buys Cyprus from the Templars. 1192 Treaty of Jaffa. 1193-1230 The Livonian Crusade. 1193 Crusade in Spain. 1197-8 German Crusade to Palestine. 1202-4 The Fourth Crusade. 1202 Crusaders take Zara. 1204 Constantinople taken and sacked by the Crusaders. 1204-5 Conquest of the Peloponnese. 1212 The Children’s Crusade. 1212 Crusade in Spain. 1217-29 The Fifth Crusade.

140 1218 Siege of Damietta by Crusaders. 1221 Crusaders in Egypt defeated at al-Mansura. 1228-9 Crusade of the Emperor Frederick II 1229 Frederick II regains Jerusalem, Nazareth and Toron by treaty with al-Kamil. 1229-33 Civil war in Cyprus. 1229-53 Crusade in Spain. 1239-40 Crusade in aid of Constantinople. 1239-40 Crusade of Theobald of Champagne: treaties with Damascus and Egypt Restore Galilee and Ascalon to the Crusaders, Jerusalem occupied by an-Nasir of Kerak. 1244 Jerusalem sacked by Khorezmians, Egyptians and Khorezmians defeat a Crusader-Syrian army at Gaza. 1248-54 First Crusade of King Louis IX of France. 1249 Louis IX lands in Egypt and captures Damietta. 1250 Louis defeated and captured by Egyptians, ransomed by surrender of Damietta. 1250-54 Louis in Palestine. 1251 First Crusade of the Shepherds. 1258 Hulagu and the Mongols capture Baghdad. 1260 Mongols under Kitbogha take Damascus but are defeated at Ain Jalut by Mamluk army under Baybars. 1261 Michael Palaeologus reconquers Constantinople. 1266 Mamluks under Kalavun devastate Armenia: Baybars captures Safad and overruns Galilee. 1268 Baybars captures Jaffa, Beaufort and Antioch. 1269-72 Second Crusade of Louis. 1271-72 Crusade of Edward of England. 1271 Baybars takes Krak des Chevaliers. 1277 Kingdom of Jerusalem splits. 1281 Kalavun defeats the Mongols near Homs.

141 1283-1302 Crusade against Sicilians and Aragonese. 1286 Kingdom of Jerusalem reunited under King Henry II of Cyprus. 1289 Kalavun (Mamluks) captures Tripoli. 1291 Al-Ashraf Khalil (son of Kalavun) captures Acre: Athlith and Tortosa evacuated. 1302 Latin rule in Jubail ends. 1306 Hospitallers begin invasion of Rhodes. 1309 Popular Crusade. 1309-10 Crusade against Venice. 1310 Hospitaller Crusade consolidates hold on Rhodes. 1314 Crusade in Hungary. 1320 Second Crusade of the Shepherds. 1321 Crusade against Ferrara, Milan and Ghibellines. 1323 Norwegian Crusade against the Russians in Finland. 1325 Crusade in Poland. 1328 Crusade in Spain. 1332-4 First Crusade League. 1334 Ships of Crusade League defeat Turks in Gulf of Adramyttion. 1337 Ayas falls to Mamluks. 1340 Crusade against the heretics in Bohemia. 1344 Crusade League occupies Smyrna. 1345 Crusade of Genoese to defend Kaffa against the Mongols. 1348 Crusade of Sweden to Finland. 1349-50 Siege of Gibraltar. 1359 Crusade League defeats Turks at Lampsakos. 1360 Crusade against Milan. 1365-7 Crusade of King Peter I of Cyprus. 1365 Alexandria taken and held six days by Peter of Cyprus. 1366 Crusade of Amadeus of Savoy to Dardanelles and Bulgaria. 1377 Achaea leased to the Hospitallers for five years. 1383 Crusade of the bishop of Norwich against the Clementists in Flanders.

142 1396 Crusade of Nicopolis. 1398 Crusade to defend Constantinople proclaimed. 1399-1403 Crusade of John Boucicaut.

143